A great man has died today. A father, peacemaker and visionary, our world will be the worse without him. May he spend the rest of his days on the seas, where he was born, and was always at peace.
Whai Te Pouākai has died after a tragic fishing accident off the coast of Taumutu. He led the Māori to victory through the war with the Romans, and began settlement of Kumari Kandam. We mourn this terrible loss.
As we speak, the new Hui Ariki convenes on Hokianga to decide the next Arikinui.
The Arikinui is dead! Long live the Arikinui!
lol Attached Image
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/296056831514509312/760867794312757278/image0.png Attached Image
I woke up this morning with an intense feeling that I didnt save the game last session
I did in fact save the game last session
https://tenor.com/view/love-you-lots-kiss-peachcat-gif-13985240
FUCK colonialism
"The Maori are not sending their best. They're sending barbarians, violent folk, and uncultured swine! And some, I assume, are good people"
f***
I just wanna say a massive thank you to all of DCiv. Without y'all business class would be so boring. I might have to like, pay attention.
Good session folks
When you make a tag for the bot for the first time Attached Image
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pqNLWnU0DUCmsRZ3QBvr4NlYqkMHATezXtHNIzRpo8k/edit?usp=sharing
Hi so this is me and I want to fund literacy programs. I'll run independent ranking polls for basically every publication I can find and will distribute 40 Lira every three weeks to all publications based on their scores. Hopefully that will encourage people to write more and be nice for already established writers. The corporate code is LIT, thank you for your attention 🙏
Look at me Im Tay and I have friends
Istanbul .. 2020 .. colorized .. Local business man Piper goes into history as the richest man in all of the ottoman empire Attached Image
QI is always there to ruin my moments
-bank send @TheWalrus 100 I am a honest man .. let the record show
Muthuvel Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu for 5 separate terms between 1969 and 2011, passed away on Aug 7th at the age of 94. submitted by Orwellisright to IndiaSpeaks [link] [comments] He was the most major and consequential face of the “Dravidian movement” since Annadurai’s death in 1969 A lot of obituaries will no doubt focus on his political career and his legacy. But in my view this is a good time to take a step back and better understand the “ideas” and prejudices that Karunanidhi championed. "Views" that predate him by decades and that he did not originate. While it is all very well to focus on people, a discussion of ideas and their place in history is always more useful. What was the “Dravidian movement” all about? Was it something that emerged all of a sudden with the DMK’s victory in 1967 TN elections - as an outcome of a mass outrage against “North Indian” hegemony and the imposition of Hindi? Or do we go further back and place its origins in the late 19th / early 20th century with the Justice Party and the Self-respect movement - a political assertion of the “non brahmin” tamil people against the perceived Brahmin dominance in Tamil Nadu during the British Raj? But these are proximate ways of thinking about political movements. Which are not satisfactory. Why Tamil Nadu? The Brahmins were arguably even more “dominant” (as measured by literacy rates and occupancy of government jobs) in Mysore than in Madras. Yet there was no “Dravidian movement” in Mysore / Karnataka. The Brahmins were pretty “dominant” in Bombay Presidency as well, yet we didn’t see a “Non-Brahmin” maratha assertion in Maharashtra, until much later in the 20th century. Why is it that this political movement rooted in a. Tamil exceptionalism b. Dislike of the Brahmin c. Dislike of Northern cultural influences (Sanskrit, Hindi, “Brahminical” Hinduism) Emerged ONLY in TN and not in other southern states, or in other non-Hindi parts of India? These are questions that haven’t been asked enough by historians and discussed even less in media This thread is a modest attempt to answer these qns, and examine briefly the political/social circumstances in Tamil Nadu over the past 1000 yrs, which help answer these questions So let’s first try to understand the Tamil country. A land that has been extremely well integrated with “Aryavrata” for nearly 2000 years. In fact one can legitimately regard it as a part of “Aryavrata” starting with Pallava rule in the middle of the 1st millennium CE The period from about 5th / 6th century CE to 13th century can be regarded as a “Golden age” for the Tamil country - a period when the land was first ruled by the Great Pallavas, and later the Cholas (with a brief Pandya revival in 13th cen) It was a period when Tamil Nadu emerged arguably as the citadel of Hindu culture in all of subcontinent - a culture that enmeshed the great Sanskritic traditions of the north with the local Tamil traditions - and in the process enriching both Now why do I regard the cosmopolitan Tamil culture of 6th to 13th centuries as the high point of Tamizh civilization? It is on account of its remarkable accomplishments This period saw some of the greatest works in Tamil (and Hindu) literature - - The great Bhakti poetry of Azhwars and Nayanars (6th to 9th century CE) - Kamban’s Rama-avataram (12th century) The period was also the emergence of the great Tamil empires - when Tamil maritime flourished like never before, and Tamil / Hindu influence extended into much of South East Asia The Medieval Cholas were that rare Indian exception- an expansionist Indian Empire. An empire that defeated and subjugated the great Srivijaya kingdom of Indonesia, and also conquered much of Sri Lanka in 11th cen. Sri Lanka was under Chola rule for nearly all of 11th cen. The period was also marked by great architectural innovation - all the great Chola and Pallava temples of Tamil Nadu - be it Brihadeeshwara & Airavateshwara (in Tanjore region) or Kailashnathar / Mahabalipuram (near Kanchi) date to this period of hectic architectural activity Finally the period is most distinguished for its massive, I repeat massive, contribution to the Hindu religion. The Vaishnava and Shaiva faiths consolidated during this period. The great Hindu theologians - Sankara and Ramanuja - belong to this period It was also a period when Tamil devotional literature was integrated with the Sanskrit mainstream. The devotional literature gained intellectual legitimacy in temples across Tamil Nadu notwithstanding the low origins of many of the Tamil poets who wrote this literature. So why are we discussing all this. The point to note here is that during this heyday of Tamil civilization, the Tamil country was arguably the shining light of India (esp given the decline that had set in much of the North after the fall of Harsha) And this civilization was not marked by any “revolt” against brahmins or Sanskrit or northern influences. It was a confident Tamil culture that embraced northern influences as well as northern migrants. One example of seamless migration from the north is that of the great Sanskrit writer Dandin, who was a part of the Pallava court in early 8th century. His family was one that had immigrated to Tamil Nadu from Vidarbha in the North in the 7th century So it was a confident civilization, with none of the Tamizh insecurities that characterize the modern Dravidian movement. So what changed? Things began to change around the 14th cen, when Tamil Nadu gradually lost its political sovereignty. The Cholas faded. The Pandyas of Madurai were overthrown by Delhi Sultanate The Madurai Sultanate’s rule of terror over southern Tamil Nadu in the 14th cen left tremendous scars By the end of the 14th cen, all of the Tamil country was under Vijayanagar rule, which had its base in northern Deccan (Hampi). Following the fall of Vijayanagara, the Tamil territories came under the rule of the Nayakas - who were originally governors of Vijayanagara Empire Post late 17th century the Nayaka influence also waned, and Maratha influence gradually increased. Thanjavur became a seat of Maratha power. Elsewhere in Northern Tamil country, the Muslim Nawabs established their rule centered in the town of Arcot (modern Vellore). So what do we gather about this long period from 14th century to 19th century? It was a period of Non-Tamil rule in Tamil Nadu. Starting with Vijayanagara, then Nayaks, then the Marathas, the Nawabs, and finally the British. Quite naturally it was also a period of Tamizh decline. Vast populations of non-Tamil origin (particularly from Andhra) moved into Tamil Nadu during this period, especially due to Vijayanagara patronage So Telugu (and to a lesser extent Sanskrit) became very dominant languages in the corridors of power. Tamil receded. Telugu was perceived as the language with some class! The language used by respectable people. Tamil - the language of the masses and the subjects. To me this phase of Telugu’s rise and Tamil’s decline cannot be over-emphasized. It is very important to understand the roots of Tamil rage and Tamil insecurities One way to understand the predominance of Telugu in Tamil country is to examine Carnatic Music - an art form whose formal development was primarily in Tamil Nadu in late 18th / early 19th century The three giants of this art form in late 18th century were - Tyagaraja, Shama Sastri and Muthuswami Dikshitar. Atleast two of them, we are sure, had Telugu as their mother tongue But where did they live? In Andhra? No . They lived in the vicinity of Tanjore - the Tamil heartland How about their compositions? - Well the compositions were primarily in Telugu, and some in Sanskrit. Hardly any in Tamil, the language spoken by the masses around them So we have this long long period of Tamil decline, which no doubt hurt Tamil pride a lot. This is after all the land of Silappadikaram and Tirukkural. The land of Rajaraja Chola and Kamban But by 19th century, the language and culture had been reduced to a second rate status thanks to the remarkable growth of Telugu - an upstart language which barely even existed in literary form back in the 1st millennium CE when Tamil was the pre-eminent southern language There was a lot of frustration of course. And it needed venting. It also needed a scapegoat. Who to blame? You can’t blame old and bygone kings, nor can you blame “Telugu” people who were too numerous, and well integrated into Tamil society. The scapegoat was the Brahmin and also his “Sanskritic” ways. But why was the “Brahmin” singled out? Now to understand this we need to change our tracks a bit and now switch our focus to the British Raj Let’s go the 1820s - a period when Thomas Munro reigned as Madras Governor. It still marked the initial phase of British rule over Southern India in its entirety Munro undertook a survey to assess the educational conditions in the Presidency - the results of which are revealing Does the survey suggest a very high degree of Brahmin dominance in education? Let’s pick two districts in the Tamil country where the Brahmins were most numerous back then (> 5% of pop). These were also temple towns where much of the “brahmin cultural capital” was concentrated Here’s the caste distribution of Male school going students in these 2 districts b/w 1822 and 1825 https://preview.redd.it/46gwajrslwe11.jpg?width=591&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb3e93b7d4130c23b4f8e2c6f9701723747c4427 What do we notice - Sure, there is some over-representation of Brahmins ( a share of 10-15% suggests a 2x over-indexing relative to their share in population - around 5% or more in these districts) But this is far from the stereotypical view of education being denied to the non-twice born castes. A very vast majority of students in both these districts were “Shudras” (which in the south is a blanket term covering over three quarters of the population) So the educational reality of the 1820s did not warrant any grudge against the “Brahmins” as a class in society that monopolizes education The data on schools back then was only indicative, as a very large section of kids used to be home-schooled. As per Munro’s own report, in the city of Madras, 26,446 boys were being schooled at home, in contrast to only 5,523 boys who were attending the Patha-shalas We have these numbers thanks to Dharampal’s painstaking research whose book “The Beautiful Tree” demolished many myths about late medieval / early modern India, at the time of the British encounter However as the 19th century proceeded, there was considerable social change. Firstly it was a period of relative economic stagnation / decline (a process that had started much earlier in 17th century), causing many traditional pathashalas to close down. Secondly with the formal establishment of British Raj, and the new opportunities in the bureaucracy, and in urban professions, the Brahmin ascendancy began. An ascendancy without a precedent for the community in Indian history. Nowhere was this ascendancy more marked than in TN By 1912, the Brahmin dominance was very real particularly in the British bureaucracy. Here’s a table from that year - https://preview.redd.it/sci3i896mwe11.jpg?width=584&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=559feb7a2cd75f534aa675f287089b29a5a4c6f8
What is more likely is that Brahmins embraced the change in climate better, and took to English education in a big way - unlike a lot of other communities One way to understand the “Brahmin rise” is to look at specific cases of Brahmins whose lives were transformed during this period of late 19th century. Take two famous instances - VS Srinivasa Sastri (1869 - 1946), Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar (1883-1953) The former became a famous Indian politician, diplomat and administrator. A famed “Moderate” leader of the Gokhale wing within Congress. The latter was a famous lawyer and member of the Drafting committee and Constituent assembly which framed the Indian Constitution Now why am I picking these two names? There is a common thread. Both were born in villages, and were sons of temple priests! They were not well-connected aristocrats. They came out of nowhere. So in the 1820 setup, kids like these were no different from a thousand other kids (Brahmin or Non Brahmin) leading a mediocre existence in small towns. But the British Raj provided opportunities for several such “outliers” (incidentally Brahmin) to max out their potential So this was the story of the 19th cen. A century during which there was considerable change in the economy. More opportunities than ever before for the creme-de-la-creme. But stagnation for everyone else This meant greater social inequality, and a widening rift between castes. This was also coupled, if you remember, by the larger story of Tamil decline we discussed earlier. But then 19th century changed the language equations for the first time in 500 years. Tamil made a comeback! And this comeback was partly because of the rise of the professional middle class (mostly Tamil speaking Brahmin) without any “connections” in the old Telugu set-up. A lot of these new kids on the block were key in reviving the Tamil language Take a couple of names -
Even the current obsession with Lemuria / Kumari Kandam among Dravidian chauvinists in our times actually dates back to the late 19th century - a period of Tamil revival Lemuria interestingly was the speculation of a submerged continent connecting Australia and India - it was originally a theory suggested by 19thc European / American scholars - now a discredited theory ofcourse. In the heady days of Tamil revival of late 19th century, connections were drawn between Lemuria and Kumari Khandam (a lost continent of Tamil civilization) which ironically first finds mention in a 15th century Tamil adaptation of Skanda Purana (titled Kanda Puranam). This connection of Kumari Kandam with Lemuria was actually first made by a Brahmin young man named VG Suryanarayana Sastri - who died at 33 To him, Kumari Khandam was a part of Brahmanic lore, which he was indiscreet enough to connect with Lemuria -a discredited 19th c construct Little did the young lad know that his fanciful speculations would capture the movement of the Dravidian movement in the decades to follow So let’s get back on track on where Tamil Nadu stood at the beginning of 20th century - On one hand, there was this increasing rift between Brahmin and Non Brahmin driven by education and the English language. On the other, we had a revival of Tamil consciousness Both very much key to the emergence of the Dravidian movement. And not surprisingly this movement did not work out too well for the Brahmin. He was the scapegoat for 500 years of Tamil decline. The earliest manifestation of this movement was not particularly rabid or secessionistic. It was in the form of a party called the “Justice Party” founded in 1916 by Sir Thyagaraja Chetty and TM Nair. A point to note that the leaders of this non brahmin Justice Party - were by no means “low caste”. These were typically upper caste non brahmins - who resented the brahmin ascendance the most This was also the period of Morley Minto reforms (1909) which had greatly increased Indian participation in provincial govt. So populism was very much in the air A characteristic of Justice Party was that it combined anti-Brahminism with a hostility towards Home rule (Annie Besant and her friends were not viewed positively). It was also opposed to Gandhi and his noncooperation movement Its stance was that home rule meant “Brahmin rule" So while it was radical in its anti-brahminism, it was oddly a conservative party in the way it stood right behind the British like a loyal bulldog The Justice Party was no minor fish. It was the major political alternative to Congress in Madras Presidency and dominated power for 14 of the 17 years from 1920 to 37 Some of its prominent leaders included Subbarayulu Reddiar, Munuswamy Naidu, and the Raja of Bobbili The Justice Party when in power, had some firsts under its name. It was the first govt in India to introduce caste-based reservations back in 1921 for certain govt jobs. A legacy that we are left with to this day. To its credit, it did make voter-qualifications gender neutral and also allowed women to become legislators in 1921 (reversing a Govt of India Act policy from 1919) In 1925 it passed an act which brought for the first time many temples under the direct control of state govt. State meddling in temples is something that bothers conservatives to this day. The genesis for this lies in this act passed by the Justice Party govt back in 1925 The party leaders were drawn from the great landed castes. Given the dominance of zamindars in the party, it often supported the harsh measures of the British govt. An example being its refusal to support reduction in taxation in non-zamindari areas leading to peasant protests It was a not a surprise then that this party of the elites united on a casteist plank of anti-Brahminism suffered a massive defeat in the provincial elections of 1937 - when the Franchise was much wider than in previous elections The Congress under the leadership of the brahmin and Gandhian leader Rajaji assumed power in 1937. But the new Congress govt in its nationalist zeal, did a mistake, Rajaji introduced compulsory Hindi education in all schools in the Presidency in 1937 sparking great protests from ’37 to 40. An awful mistake by a wise politician This was capitalized by an emergent face on the Dravidian front - EV Ramaswamy Naicker (also known as Periyar) Periyar has to rank among the half-a-dozen most influential politicians in Indian history. Whether one likes him or despises him. Now who was he? And where did he come from? He was born in 1879 in the town of Erode in Coimbatore district in a very rich Balija Naicker family of Kannada antecedents. It is even claimed that his mother tongue was Kannada not Tamil! It was by no means a humble beginning Unlike Justice party leaders, Periyar has a Congress past. He had joined the Party back in 1919, and worked with Rajaji in organizing the non-cooperation movement. But when he did not find enough support for his reservation campaigns, he left the party in a huff in 1925 He was a major figure in the Vaikom Satyagraha, a movement against untouchability circa '24-25 But Vaikom was a mainstream movement supported even by upper caste men like Gandhi as well as the regent of Travancore kingdom. So Periyar hardly was unique for his participation there. But it was after the Justice party’s thumping defeat that Periyar found his big opportunity. There was a power vacuum in the party. In 1938 he took over as the President of the party. And it was the Hindi imposition issue of 1937 - which gave him a big voice! Under his leadership the Justice Party was transformed from a party of rich non brahmin landlords serving their own interests, to a populist, often rabble rousing outfit. The fear of Hindi among the Tamils was exploited fully by Periyar in his rhetoric. He somehow succeeded in blending the Tamil fear of Hindi with the dislike of Brahmins and the “Sanskritic value system” more broadly. It was a heady mix that was bound to work. In 1944, he renamed the party to Dravidar Kazhagam. The DK employed the methods used by RSS in the north - volunteer efforts positioned as “social reform” that campaigned aggressively against the Hindu religion, brahmin priesthood, and so-called religious “superstitions” While the DK did engage in some positive constructive measures like opposing untouchability, working for women’s education etc, this hardly distinguished it from the much maligned “brahminical” Congress (which also fought against the said evils). What distinguished DK was its negative plank built on a dislike of brahmins and “Northern influences” but disguised very well under the garb of “rationalism” / “reason” The Dravidar Kazhagam was also secessionist in its demand for a separate “Tamil nation”. This led to a split within the party in 1949 when Periyar’s disciple CN Annadurai left him to form “Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam” (Munnetra interestingly means “Progressive” in Tamil) Anna sought a compromise with the Central Govt and Congress, where the Tamil country remains a part of the Indian Union albeit with greater autonomy There was also a great deal of unrest within Dravidar Kazhagam against Periyar and his ways. In 1948 at the age of 70 the man married a 32 year old - a move that drew the ire of many of his own party members, causing the split So while DMK tried to gain respectability to contest elections competitively in a post-independence India, Periyar and his DK continued with their extreme, often rabble-rousing positions against Brahminism, Theism among other things While Periyar remained an important voice in Tamil Nadu, he was not in active electoral politics post split. He died in 1973 at the age of 94 CN Annadurai on the other hand, was the leading electoral leader for the DMK for much of the 50s and 60s. As we discussed, he was not always explicit and aggressive in pushing for the claim for secession. But he never abandoned the goal until the 60s. Nor did the DMK In 1963, the 16th amendment to the Constitution was passed, which basically banned any party that is contesting elections from espousing secessionist principles. Annadurai actually debated against this amendment but could not prevent its passage! Post this amendment, DMK had no choice but to give up entirely on the claim for Dravida Nadu. It was an ideal they had cherished, but gave it up in order to remain in the electoral game. The prospect of power was too attractive For the period between 1952 and 1967, DMK gained in popularity in TN with every passing election. But the Congress remained firmly in Power. Rajaji was the chief minister till 1954, to be succeeded by Kamaraj from '54 to '63, and Bhaktavatsalam from 63 to 67 The Congress was too strong to be uprooted throughout the 50s and early 60s. But again it was Hindi that did the trick for DMK. Things materialized In 1967 We have already discussed the first anti-Hindi agitation of 1937. In 1965, there was originally a plan laid out in the Constitution to make Hindi the sole official language of the country - a very impractical somewhat hare brained idea to begin with As 1965 approached, the anti-Hindi sentiment rose by the day, Full-scale riots broke out in many parts of TN. The death toll was in several hundreds. Eventually the PM LB Shastri pacified the state by assuring that English would continue as the official language along with Hindi But the anti-Hindi movement had done the trick for DMK - something that years and years of anti-brahmin and “rationalist” rhetoric had not managed to do In 1967, when the assembly as well as general elections were held, the unpopular Congress govt headed by Bhaktavatsalam was trounced and Anna-led DMK stormed to power. The Dravidian movement had triumphed Since 1967 Tamil Nadu has been ruled by Dravidian parties. By DMK for much of the 70s, ADMK for much of the 80s, and then alternating between the two parties since. The national parties have not stood a chance in any election From 67 to 69 - Anna was the CM. But in 69, he succumbed to cancer. The reins of the party now moved to M Karunanidhi, who we mentioned at the start of the thread Karunanidhi, like his one-time friend, MG Ramachandran (MGR) came from the movie industry. He started his career as a screenwriter for Tamil cinema in the late 40s / early 50s and was an enormously successful figure The DMK had started leveraging movie guys like Karunanidhi, MGR, Kannadasan, and others starting from the 50s, to increase its popularity in a state where Congress reigned supreme. Leveraging movie men has always been the tactic used by the Dravidian parties since independence Karunanidhi became CM pretty early in his life. At the age of 45 in 1969. And he remained the Chief Minister of the state till 1976, when Indira Gandhi dismissed his govt during the Emergency Post Anna’s demise , Karunanidhi had to contend with MGR, arguably a more popular leader with the masses. In 1972, MGR was expelled from the party. Which was inevitable, given Karunanidhi’s ambitions for his own family, as well as MGR’s discomfort with DMK’s explicit atheism MGR was a Malayali Nair by origin, and was a devout man. He neither shared Karunanidhi’s anti-brahminism, nor his atheism. While very much a Dravidian populist, he felt he had a better chance in politics with his own front that was formed in 1972 It called itself Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - invoking itself to be the true heir of Anna’s legacy - a legacy that Karunanidhi had purportedly betrayed with his corruption and nepotism But Populism remained a feature of Dravidian politics in both parties right from 1967. Anna himself was the first politician in India to use a promise of “rice subsidy” to secure the win in '67 His election slogan was “rubaikku moonu padi arisi” (3 measures of rice for a rupee) Karunanidhi continued in the same vein. He lifted Prohibition in 1971, not unexpected, as DMK’s materialist philosophy has always struck a contrast to the high Gandhian moralism of the high-minded Congress leaders like Rajaji and Kamaraj In 1977, MGR led ADMK trounced Karuna’s DMK, and MGR became the CM of the state - a post he held from '77 till his death in '87 MGR was succeeded by his brahmin wife Janaki (who was CM briefly) and later by his protege J Jayalalitha (a cine-star of repute and also a Brahmin) The two parties have established a more or less bi-polar set-up in TN with the Congress vote share waning with every passing election Jayalalitha emerged as a worthy successor and a worthy rival to Karunanidhi, and was CM from 1991 to 96, 2001 to 2006 and then from 2011 till 2016 - though she was often made to step down for brief periods due to corruption allegations and arrests Karunanidhi was CM during the late 90s (96-2001), and again the late 2000s (2006-11). Basically during the intervals when Jayalalitha was out of power But broadly the two parties have contested on a plank of populism. There has been little to distinguish the two parties ideologically. While DMK still retains an “anti-hindu” / “anti-brahmin” edge to its rhetoric - that flavor is increasingly irrelevant in a vastly different state where a good chunk of brahmins have bolted in search of jobs elsewhere Tamil Nadu remains a deeply religious state and DMK’s atheistic rhetoric is now more of a liability than an asset. The ADMK has always been without that edge to its rhetoric, while it has competed nonetheless with DMK when it comes to placating religious minorities for votes Jayalalitha died in 2016 and Karunanidhi now in 2018. With the demise of the two great leaders, is there a vacuum that can be filled by the national parties - the BJP in particular? Perhaps, but the national parties need to be mindful of the Tamil exceptionalism we have discussed in many parts of this thread. They need to groom leaders attuned to the Tamil psyche in order to succeed. Something that they have traditionally failed to do. Tamil Nadu, notwithstanding the populism of its politics, has been one of the more successful states in the Indian union. It’’s PPP adjusted per-capita income of around $10.5K is well in excess of the national average of $7K. Who should we credit for this? The Dravidian parties will of course be glad to accept credit, by talking up their “social empowerment” as an enabler of economic success The truth however is more nuanced. Maybe Tamil Nadu was always a “better than average” state in Indian history. Going all the way back to Pallava heyday. So it is not a surprise it is doing well Populism still needs to be resisted. We must not fall prey to the post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and give credit to “Dravidian politics” for TN’s relative success Tamil Nadu has done well despite its politicians and not because of them. If anything we must credit its people Post-script : Thanks for reading, if you got this far! Would like to acknowledge @entropied - my many conversations with him helped clarify some thoughts, and also thanks to his pointer to Dharampal's research on 1820 Madras school data - something that I was unaware of. The entire thread can be found here - https://twitter.com/shrikanth_krish/status/1026967892125003776 @shrikanth_krish Data scientist. NYC-based. Writes on Politics, Economics, Religion, Classics and Intellectual History |
In 1868, a three year old girl disappeared from her father’s lumber camp in Northern Michigan. After enlisting the help of a pair of professional hunters, who happened on the hysterical search scene by chance, the men traced the little girl’s feeble cries to a dense stand of brush. When the men advanced on the thicket, they saw what they said looked like a giant bear burst from it and run across the river, heading for the distant horizon. The men recovered the girl unharmed from the brush. She later told them that “Mr. Wolf” would not let her leave, and had eaten her hat from right off her head; although, he had also gathered berries and fed them to her.(28 – 16:42) On the night of July 2, 1955, Mrs. Curtis, summoned by her distraught older children, arrived just in time to see what she and the children said was a was a huge bear cradling her 2-year-old daughter Ida Mae Curtis in its front paw as it scurried off on three legs from their tent in a lumber camp at the wild Kootenai National Forrest in Montana (29). On July 4, after a search by 350 backwoodsmen in heavy rain, Ida was found dry and safe in a crudely built shelter across a river, just 300 yards away from where she was taken. Ida would later relate, to the best of a 2-year-old’s ability, being cuddled and comforted by the bear during the time she was missing. The Sheriff became so angry that he actually paid the Curtises three separate visits demanding that they stop telling their story of a bear abducting and caring for their little girl. He told them “quit telling that story. It could never happen. It didn’t happen and don’t say it anymore.”(30 – 54:27)The wolf ate my hat and fed me berries
Where's your hat. Girl: The wolf ate it. Where's your gloves? Girl: The wolf ate it. Why didn't you call? Why didn't you say something when we called? Girl: He wouldn't let me. Did you get anything to eat? Girl: The wolf brought me berries in its hands.Paulides explains that:
This story was in several different newspapers in 1783 [or] 1784, reprinted again in 1920s. ... In this [Missing 411] Eastern book there are several stories of kids being taken by bears. Bears that coddle kids, bears that feed the kids. But specifically this girl said a wolfe. And it was a giant wolf.Missing for 46 hours: "the sun shined the whole time"
About three weeks after the incident, John Doe's grandmother says her grandson told her that "he didn't like his other grandma Kappy". (Kappy is the boy's name for grandma Kathy) When she asked him to explain further, he said, "[sic] Don't you remember when I was lost in the woods? The other grandma Kappy grabbed me and took me to a creepy place, she's really a robot. It was a cave with spiders, and there was purses and guns. I was too scared, so I didnt touch anything. But, when she climbed a ladder, the light made her look like a robot. There were other robots too, but they didnt move. She made me lay down to look at my tummy, then she tried to get me to poop on a sticky paper, but I couldnt go. She told me that I am from outer space, and they put me in my moms tummy. Then she took me back to the river and said to wait under the bush until someone found me." She also states that her grandson said: "[sic]she had your same hair, your feet and even your face". That scared her deeply, the idea of some kind of doppleganger taking on her own image to abduct her grandson. She says she got the impression that her grandson may have been talking about a 'hologram' because of the way he described the light sparkling on the strange woman. His grandmother was horrified and called her son (the boy's father) who told her that he had also heard the same story from the boy a few days ago. She admitted that she would've probably written off her grandson's story to a child's overactive imagination, if it wasn't for a strange experience that happened to her a year ago when she was camping in the same area near Fowler's campground in McCloud, California. She claims she woke up one morning face down in the dirt, having been removed from her tent and sleeping bag. And she had a puncture wound on the back of her head. She said she felt violently ill that morning, and felt strangely emotionless, so she thought she'd been bitten by a poisonous spider. She said she was with a friend who'd been sleeping in his separate camper, and he also woke up with a 'bite' on the back of his neck, and he felt ill as well. The only thing strange she could recall was seeing 'red eyes' shining through the trees in their flashlights night night before, which they thought were deer.Stories from adults:
Two men who read one of Paulides' books in this series wrote to report they were walking on their family farm, property they were familiar with their entire lives, and encountered rather odd circumstances. First, they said, they realized that all sound had disappeared around them - the sounds of nature. Then they realized that although they were sure they were on the family property, they suddenly could not identify their surroundings. They soon walked out of what they felt was a "portal" and back into familiar grounds.3 year old helped by the "big black man"
The Little Wanderer Alice Rachel Peck, aged 3 years and four months, wandered away from her home in Burn's Valley, Thursday August 25th 1898, in search for her mother, who went on an errand. The little girl traveled an old and unused bark road, climbed over a high and very rough mountain and there, worn out with hunger and without bonnet or shoes, for three day and night had nothing to eat but a few huckleberries, while friends and neighbors were diligently searching for her or her remains. She was found on Sunday morning, August 28th at half past seven o'clock, by William Bair, sound and well. She neither smiled or cried as two hundred voices rang out the glad tidings of great joy, five miles from her home, in the mountains. While her parents were in great agony at home, they were soon relieved when hearing the many voices and trumpets, proclaiming that the lost had been found. On the same morning the child was found and in the same vicinity, from 8 until half past 11 o'clock, 13 rattlers, 2 vipers and 2 copperheads were killed. All returned happy, but some were very near worn out. The majority of those who participated in the child hunt saved their canes as relics of the day.Mark H. wrote in and said this:
This is a copy of an old newspaper article. A friend posted this on a community Facebook page we belong. My brother-in-law had told me a longer version several years ago. The news clip seemed shorter than his version. .... His grandmother was the Alice's younger sister. The reporter makes it sound like a light-hearted adventure. They were picking berries with a group. Her mother left and went back to the house for some reason. When she came back, the group had thought that the girl had been with her mother. She had her shoes and bonnet when last seen. The area hasn't changed much since then. It has basic Pa. mountain terrain with enough dirt between the boulders and rocks to grow trees and mountain laurel. You have to crawl under or walk on top of it. Her uncle wasn't buying she traveled to where they found her on her own. Alice was asked how she got over those big rocks. She told him "the big black man helped her." That's all she could tell him. If it had been a black man in that area back then, he would have been well-known by the residents.Invited to dinner and stayed for the night
The story takes place in a forested mountain setting which would be just fine for ancient Ireland or Wales or Scotland. Not only did Wafford [Mooney's confidant] hear this from the experiencer, but had heard it previously from several second hand sources [which is why he looked the fellow up for an interview]. All of Wafford's sources said that this man was "a truthful, hard-headed man". Here is what he was told: When he was 10-12 years old he was practicing with bow-and-arrow near the river and got tired of it. He sat on the riverbank building a fish trap, and was piling up some stones to wall in the fish. A normal looking stranger came up to him, remarked that this looked like hard work, and he should take a break. The boy was quite willing to do that, but didn't know if the next offer [to come up the river and have dinner at the stranger's house] was the right thing to do. But customs were different in those days, and the boy went along. The house was fine and the people very friendly. He had a nice meal, and while doing so, a friend of his family arrived at the stranger's house, and that made him feel at home. He played with the family's children, went to sleep, woke in the morning, had breakfast, and began to get started for home. He and the original gentleman began walking down a path between a cornfield on one side and a peach orchard on the other. Soon the trail connected with another one, and the man said: go by this trail to the ridge ahead and you'll come to the river road. That will take you straight home. And he turned and went back to his house and farm. The boy walked just a little way towards the river, and, in curiosity, turned and looked back. There was no peach orchard nor cornfield. There was no house nor trail. There was only the mountainside and the trees. He continued uneventfully back home, where he was greeted by many who had been looking for him. In explanation, he told his story. He saw the family friend who had visited that house also that evening. But the friend said: no, I have been with everyone else looking for you. His family told him that no house was there and that the family friend was an impersonation by the Nunne'hi.. They told him that there have sometimes been the sounds of drumming coming from that mountainside, but he had visited no men, but the Nunne'hi. The Irish know all about what happened there. Whether it's called "The Lost Sod" or the "World Alongside", the boy had passed into the parallel world of the Nunne'hi and, just there, passed back out again.The story was found by Professor Michael Swords, who found the data in Ivan Sanderson's book collection. This is what Swords had to say about the find:
Ivan Sanderson had a very poor-quality copy of several pages of James Mooney's MYTHS of the CHEROKEE from the Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report for 1897-8... I don't know why I even bothered to squint away at the crumby document, but I'm glad that I did. [ What it was was the field information gathered about a type of paranormal being [society of beings] who resemble old Celtic ideas of the Siddhe --- not the little people of Faerie, but the full-sized entities more like the Tuatha DeDanaan. I was surprised by both the tale told and the fact that Sanderson was even interested, as he shows little interest in such things elsewhere in the collection. Ivan didn't really like the paranormal that much. Maybe he thought that this tale hinted of something more like a "lost tribe". Well, I am very interested even if Ivan was only luke warm. The introduction to the story that I'm going to tell shortly spoke of this "race" of "magical"/ paranormal beings called the Nunne'hi. They were described as full-sized persons, looking just like the local Native Americans, and mainly friendly and occasionally helpful. As they were described I got more interested. They liked singing and dancing in the forests. Some were said to reside under ancient mounds --- WHOA! just a minute, I thought, what's going on here? The Cherokee and the Celts aren't supposed to have made up the same myths! Then I read the story which had been collected. There it was: the characteristic of a tale about an actual Encounter, rather than a dramatized folkwisdom tale for around-the-campfire. The more that I find of this stuff [and it has been a walloping great mound of it], the less possible I believe that one can sustain that nothing paranormal is going on in these incidents. How is the "coincidence" of these characteristics across the ocean possible, if not because they both arise from a real underlying shared cause? The Cherokee even have their second and separate group of knee-high little people to go along with the 5+ footers. I will probably go to my grave "All-The-Way-Fool" in my belief in this all-too-infrequently-manifested reality. "They" are one of the few things that I've not experienced and would like to do so. Just for fun.Hypnosis
The significance of this discovery cannot be overestimated. The entire history of Hinduism and Vedic culture, as taught is the academic institutions of the world, has been built upon a false construct. According to mainstream academia Vedic ‘religion’ or Hinduism did not exist until the alleged ‘Aryans’ invaded India circa 1500 BC. An even later date is given to Vaishnavism which is speculated to have been derived from animist Sun worship. Yet here we have a highly evolved art form depicting Lord Vishnu in the Far South East region of Asia dated to somewhere between 2000 BC to 1500 BC.Quoting shannondoah in that thread:
This completely undermines the entire historic timeline developed by mainstream academia in regards to the development of both Vedic/Hindu civilization and Indian history.
The region of modern India has always been the epicenter of High Vedic/Hindu Civilization and culture. No one anywhere has ever suggested the region of modern Vietnam to be the origin of Hindu civilization yet it is in Vietnam that we now have the world’s most ancient example of Indic style Vedic Vaishnava art. Thus it stands to reason that if Vedic Vaishnava art, culture and religion flourished 4000 years ago in prehistoric Vietnam it was undoubtedly flourishing in ancient India as well.
Once again science and archeology have confirmed the Vedic conclusion. As the Vedic literature states 5000 years ago India was home to a highly evolved and advanced civilization. This civilization was centered on its sacred traditions. The worship of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Lakshmi and Durga was widespread and in fact spanned the entire globe
Oc Eco was the capital of an Indianised kingdom on the Vietnam region(Kingdom of Funan),and it was an important naval port which flourished from the 1st to 7th centuries AD.Funan's initial capital was Vyadhapura(which later shifted to Oc Eco),and its heavy Indian influence was due to trade with the Pallava dynasty. And Oc Eco may have been Kirtinagara(romanised by Ptolemy as Kattigara).Quoting vistascan as well here:
It's strange how the Oc Eo culture, which flourished from the 1st to 7th centuries AD, has a 4500 year old statue of Vishnu, which even we in India don't have. This kind of pseudo-history does nothing to increase our credibility to the rest of the world.Also quoting valarauko in that thread:
The article gives zero sources as to who dated it and where the findings were published. Even other sites from Vietnam mention that the culture was much more recent.
Apparently Hinduism loses all it's value unless it's 5000 years or older, evidence be damned.
On the face (!!!) of it, the head more closely resembles Shiva than Vishnu, with the linga-like headdress, popular in South Indian bronzes. That makes sense since the region had close ties with South India. The helmet like mukuta is iconography borrowed from the Scythians, and popularized in the Gupta era. The 4500 old imagery that looks post Gupta just doesn't make sense.Oh,about what shannondoah mentioned about the AIT(Aryan Invasion theory),there is this link by shannondoah elaborating a number of controversies in ancient Indian archeology,which I am reproducing here verbatim.
I hope I have done well.This is from the chapter 'Aryan Origins and Modern Nationalist Dialogue' from Edwin Bryant's 'The quest for the origins of Vedic Culture'.
- The Aryan invasion debate in India is intensely relevant to the constructions of several very different sets of competing identities:Hindu and Muslim, indigene and foreigner, Aryan and Dravidian, and Hindu communal and Marxist secularist are all permeated in one way or another with a variety of notions connected with Aryan origins.
- There is a tendency to stereotype any local reconsiderations of ancient Indian history whatsoever as nationalist or communal,which is often unfortunate.A wide variety of motives inspire Indian scholars to revisit the topic of Indo-Aryan ori- gins: it is erroneous to lump them all into a simplistic, hastily identified and easily demonized Hindutva category.
- Nationalist historiography is not necessarily bad. It has stimulated asking questions about local cultural and ethnic configurations that would not have occurred to colonially oriented archaeologists. It has brought different assumptions, perspectives,and concerns to the data, exposed colonial predispositions and imperial biases. On the negative side, nationalism has encouraged the misinterpretation of archaeological data for political purposes and ignored important aspects of human history Archaeological interpretation can reinforce and articulate the centralizing policies of emerging nationalisms, as well as be used to legitimize ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.I'm citing Harke (1991) here.Silberman(1995) also suggests a similar thesis.
- Now, voices challenging the invasion thesis,Indian or foreign,need not be communal,which they unfortunately tend to get stereotyped.This is not to say that there are people who seek this theory for very overt politics.
- To be considered a real Hindu, a person's religious faith must have an indigenous origin.-is the crux of Savarkar's Hindutva.The problem with this seemed to be that it appeared to exclude native Muslims and Christians on the virtue of the fact that their prophets were born on the wrong side of the Indus. This[ideology of Hindutva] has a number of consequences in the way these people have dealt with the Aryan Invasion theory.
- Extreme versions of this have lead to all sorts of nationalistic nosenscical viewpoints,like England was Angulisthana originally or Arabia was Arvasthana,or Muhammad was a Hindu(of the sort produced by PN Oak) to include Muslims as 'Hindus' and thus,Indian citizens.Similar nonsense is spouted by Tamil nationalists as well.
- Hindutva ideology(since I'm talking about it here) can be easily pressed into service in alienating and targeting the Muslims and other minorities in communally volatile, modern-day India.(Hock,1999;Habib;1997,Ananth;1998)
- However,there is a tendency in Western, and in elements of Indian, academic circles to a priori stereotype everyone reconsidering this aspect of Indian history in such ways(like fascists and Nazis:This is particularly strong in places like the universities of Delhi),which has been greatly vexing to scholars like Colin Renfrew, B B Lal,etc. *The point is that: themes resonating with Hindutva, that is, the prioritizing of Hindu culture as the indigenous, and therefore legitimate, heir to hegemonic power in India (with its anti-Muslim subtext), while blatantly and distastefully present in a number of publications, does not pervade the views of all the members of the Indigenous Aryan school.
- You've already mentioned Arun Shourie ,and the controversies in the Indian Council of Historical Research.The "Left-liberal" or "secular Marxist" stereotype is subject to an amount of disgust equal to that of the colonial stooge in Indigenist discourse. Rajaram (1995) states that "in the hands of politically driven historians of post-colonial India, these nineteenth century-creations [viz., arguments supporting the Aryan invasion theory] have become handy tools to be used in support of their vested interest in Marxist ideology and the version of history that goes with it" (xiv). 20 Secular Marxists are accused of maintaining a defunct theory in order to insist that the arrival of the Aryans is analogous to the arrival of the Muslims, Christians, and numerous other groups of newcomers to the subcontinent. In such an amalgamation of immigrants, no one has more claim to indig- enous pedigree or cultural hegemony than anyone else. A secular state, from this perspective, is the only political system that can protect the equal rights of all citizens to define themselves as being Indian with cultural credentials that are as good as anybody else's.
- Thapar's comments are portrayed as "vintage Marxist rhetoric," which has "gratuitously drag[ed] in the bogey of the 'Aryan nation' . . . [as] a blatant attempt aimed at divert- ing attention away from the real issue" (Rajaram 1993, 33). Thapar (1996) finds Rajaram's writings "read rather like nineteenth century tracts but peppered with ref- erences to using the computer so as to suggest scientific objectivity since they claim that it is value-free! Those that question their theories are dismissed as Marxists" (88). From another perspective on the other side of the debate, and in interesting contrast to Thapar's concern about a single "Aryan nation," Talageri (1993) raises the alarm about multiple Marxist mininations: "The first principle of Leftist propaganda is that India is not a nation but a conglomerate of nations. . . . the rationale behind this is that if India breaks up into small "nations," these would be easier for the Leftists to gobble up one by one" . Both sides of the debate sometimes refuse to even acknowledge that there is a legitimate controversy,sadly.
- An example of the ridiculousness this reached: The entire proceedings at the plenary session of the prestigious 1994 World Archaeological Congress in Delhi came to a complete (and ridiculous) standstill for more than thirty minutes as "leftist" and "rightist" historians actually clambered onto the dais, physically wrestled each other in attempts to snatch up the microphone, and hurled abuse into the air in front of over two hundred flabbergasted foreign delegates.
- Detractors of the Indigenist school can be just as selective in the views they extract for critique, as the Indigenists they ridicule. Habib (1997) caricatures all the Indigenous Aryanists as believing that the Dravidian language family is not distinct from the Indo-Aryan one—a view held by only a very few individuals and not at all representative of the Indigenous position.Scholars like Satya Swarup Mishra(linguistics at BHU) who abhor Hindutva,face immense frustration at this stereotyping.
- There is no indication that the British consciously exploited the Aryan theory to create a divide-and-rule situation between the North and the South. However, whatever may have been the motives of colonial scholars or missionaries, the dichotomy was most certainly put to political use by separatist voices in the South of India.(Tamil Nationalism,theories of Kumari Kandam,etc).
- Western scholars are often caricatured as discouraging the tribes and lower-ranking castes from identifying with Brahman-dominated Hinduism, gaining their sympathy, and offering them a new set of loyalties in the form of Christianity.
- There are a number of scholars who outline the arguments in favor of the external origin of the Aryans, as well as the arguments that oppose it(in contrast to the shrill and often unpleasant and exclusionary Hindutva polemicists), but leave the issue unresolved—in other words, the Indigenous Aryan position is treated on equal terms with the standard version of events: "European scholars have been trying to prove that the Aryans came to India from outside and their guesses have extended to all sorts of places like Scandinavia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Turkey, Central Asia and Armenia. But any of these places cannot yet be said to really be the homeland of the Aryans. We are still in the realm of speculation and are likely to remain so" (Vidyarthi 1970).Also see RC Majumdar.
- A third category of writers gives the Indigenous Aryan school equal and respectful time but passes a verdict against them(Like Kosambi and Luniya)
- A final category—more ideologically sensitive and, as as has been exemplified earlier, usually stereotyped as the Marxist camp—actively opposes the Indigenous Aryan school.
- Ancient Indian pre- and protohistory is an extremely rich and fascinating area of study, but, unfortunately, the origin of the Indo-Aryans has become inextricably enmeshed with the politics of representation. There is every reason to be concerned that if the Vedic Indo-Aryans are interpreted as being indigenous to India, then the Vedic "civilization" and all that developed from it will be construed as "truly Indian" and all subsequent cultural groups known to have immigrated into India could explicitly or implicitly be depicted as "Others."
- If you ask me about what position I take on this stance,I'd be leaning towards Majumdar's position,or a bit more towards Kosambi's That they are open to different interpretations does not at all mean that the Indigenist position can carry the day. But, to my mind, it does mean that an Indigenous position merits a place at the table.
Though there are many traditions written in early literature, “Kumari Kandam”, the land that lay to the south of India and, which later submerged in the Indian Ocean, has been a matter of conjecture for a study by scholars. According to Aintiram, Kumari Kandam was a land which has huge area and the PalThuli river (PalThuli – Divided grammatical form of Pahruli according to Tamil grammar which means many drops), one of the Kumari Kandam rivers, originated from PeruMalai(means big mountain – represents MeruMalai – Meru Mountain). It also tells that there were 49 lands in Kumari Kandam.Tamil literary work SaivamPaayanam gives information about Kumari Kandam and its territories. It also mentions the existence of Kumari Kandam refers to a hypothetical lost continent with an ancient Tamil civilization, located south of present-day India, in the Indian Ocean. Alternative names and spellings include Kumarikkantam and Kumari Nadu. Most Tamil revivalists connect it with the Pandyan kingdom mentioned in the works of literary Tamil and Sanskrit. Kumari Kandam or Lemuria (Tamil:குமரிக்கண்டம்) is the name of a supposed sunken landmass referred to in existing ancient Tamil literature. It is said to have been located in the Indian Ocean, to the south of present-day Kanyakumari district at the southern tip of India. References in Tamil literature One piece of evidence used to support the existence of Kumari Kandam is Adam’s Bridge (also called Rama’s Bridge), a chain of limestone shoals made up of sand, silt and small pebbles located in the Palk Strait extending 18 miles from mainland India to Sri Lanka. This strip of land was once believed to be a natural formation, however, others argue that images taken by a NASA satellite depict this land formation to be a long broken bridge under the ocean's surface. The story behind the tiny house on a remote Icelandic island One such group is the Tamil nationalists. The term Kumari Kandam first appeared in the 15 th century Kanda Puranam, the Tamil version of the Skanda Puranam. Yet, stories about an ancient land submerged by the Indian Ocean have been recorded in many earlier Tamil literary works. Laut diesen Überlieferungen erstreckte er sich von der Südspitze des heutigen Indien = Kanniyakumari nach Südwesten hin bis Madagaskar nach Südosten hin bis nach Australien, und zwar als... According to Aintiram, Kumari Kandam was a land which has huge area and the PalThuli river (PalThuli – Divided grammatical form of Pahruli according to Tamil grammar which means many drops), one of the Kumari Kandam rivers, originated from PeruMalai(means big mountain – represents MeruMalai – Meru Mountain). It also tells that there were 49 lands in Kumari Kandam.Tamil literary work SaivamPaayanam gives information about Kumari Kandam and its territories. It also mentions Kumari Kandam ist ein verlorener Kontinent, der die Heimat des alten tamilischen Volkes war. Der mythische Kontinent soll südlich des heutigen Indiens existiert haben und liegt unterhalb des Indischen Ozeans. Genau wie bei Atlantis ging der Kontinent Kumari Kandam im Meer verloren, und nur wenige seiner Überlebenden entkamen den katastrophalen Ereignissen und verbreiteten sich über den Planeten. When Kumari Kandam was submerged, its people spread across the world and founded various civilizations, hence the claim that the lost continent was also the cradle of human civilization. So, how much truth is there in the story of Kumari Kandam? According to researchers at India's National Institute of Oceanography, the sea level was lower by 100 m about 14,500 years ago and by 60 m about
[index] [695] [9003] [1811] [7712] [601] [5176] [6561] [8618] [4472] [8770]
Copyright © 2024 m.betingtop.shop