Armagh444

Being among the earlist attested languages in a particular language grouping would give Sanskrit no particular claim to being the "mother tongue" of humanity. "Earliest attested" means nothing more than that it is among the earliest in that particular family for which we have written evidence. Additionally, being early in the Indo-European family does nothing to distinguish it in relation to other language families, which may well have pre-dated any Indo-European (or Proto-Indo-European) forms.

Which again, grants it no particular or special claim to being a "mother tongue".

:::chortle::: Oh you have GOT to be kidding. Natives came to the Western continents thousands of years before Hinduism was a glint in Krishna's eye. Claiming that something which didn't exist at the time heavily influenced the descendants of early Native languages and religions...well, that's so ludicrous as to barely require response. :rolling:

--Armagh

Armagh444

Prometheus,

I understand why you don't want to get drawn into this debate again, since you've hashed out the topic multiple times previously; I also understand not wanting to go too deeply into anything that's terribly off topic, given the current length of the thread. That being given, I am rather curious about something, and I figured that since comparative constitutional law isn't even close to being my strong suit, it would be best to ask someone who lives in the nation in question.

You're correct about the primacy of First Amendment issues in the United States (though a good argument could be made for the court being more concerned about the Free Exercise clause of that amendment than the Establishment clause - but that's another issue entirely). I understand the history behind that primacy, and what I'm curious about is what major factors in French history led to the difference in prioritization. I imagine the anticlericalism of the Revolution had quite a lot to do with it, but beyond that, I haven't a clue. Were there any other major factors?

And there's no need to go to into depth should you prefer not to. I was a history major in my undergrad years (unfortunately, my major area of study was several centuries prior to the Revolution), so I can dig up research pretty easily once I've been pointed in the right direction.

--Armagh

premjan

to be fair, I don't think Hindutvaites like sampath hold to traditional chronology (it boils down to anthropology and many uncertain dates), and Krishna is a relative latecomer in Hindu timelines.

French Prometheus

It's a complex question and I partly answered it on these threads :
Three cheers for France!
French regulation of headscarves Split from: You Must Understand Islam!
French Head Scarf Ban - split from Osama Endorses Bush?

The last thread has been recently resurrected. Instead of continuing this discussion here and risking having yet another thread split over this issue, I gave a short answer to your question here.

Armagh444

Thank you.

-Armagh

premjan

Who thinks there is a definite tradition in the Puranas and Epics of dark skinned principal protagonists?

Krishna
Rama
Arjuna
Draupadi
Shiva (sometimes portrayed as white)

and some others as well.

Vyasa himself was titled "Krishna" so was probably dark.

Then there are the "Rakshasas" who are always shown with dark skin (e.g. Ghatotkacha, Hidimba, Vritra, Hiranyakashipu and so on) but also with many other foul or savage characteristics.

Is this a sign that the Indianization of the Aryans involved substantial miscegenation (it must have anyway given the results)?

hinduwoman

The weird thing about divine skin complexion is that it actually contradicts Aryan Dravidian theory.
Visnu is a Vedic God while Rama should be the Aryan conqueror, but they are all dark Siva on the other hand who is always fair (Premjan I don’t think there has ever been a dark skinned Siva, though now we have a few on calendars and posters) is obviously the god of non-Vedic tribes.

As for miscegenation, you don’t have to look at colour for that. Epics and purana mythology is littered with examples of such liaisons and resulting children like Ravana and Hanuman.

badger3k

I'm sure someone has to have posted this, but you do realize how ludicrous this sounds, right? Where do you think "veggie food" came from? Wild growing plants that have nutritional value (I find wild onions in my yard all the time, among others).

You really have no idea about how life exists in the wild, do you? Carnivores hunt two groups primarily, (1) the old, lame and /or diseased animals and (taa-daa) (2) the young. Watch any National Geographic special and you'll see animals killing young since they are easier to catch. Jand Goodall recorded chimpanzees (another omnivore) killing and eating young baboons, in some cases for fun (perhaps) since they didn't eat them and sort-of played with them. You've never seen a cat play with it's food to think that carnivores let their prey die without fear (anthropomorphizing here, but I believe it is correct). Their methods of killing may in some cases be more efficient, but what about the big cats, who crush the throat of their prey - is suffocation an "easy death"? Note that I avoid the term cruel, since that implies a moral judgement on something that is entirely natural. In our terms it may seem cruel, but it's the way of nature.

I've seen chicks in an incubator completely flatten their compatriots, with no sign of anything similar to remorse or even awareness of what they had done. While I may not agree that animals do not have emotion, whether it can be accurately equated to our own (esp in the thoughts that lie behind our emotions), I am doubtful of this assertion.

And if you are getting your information from PETA, that's not a good source. They are, shall we say, a little biased.
Gee, considering that is completely an utterly BS, where did you get that? Funny, the thought never occurred to me. If she was willing, that would be one thing, but even then what are the circumstances? I am really curious to see what others have said about this one.

premjan

Rama is post-population of India. Quite possibly he already had some dark-skinned ancestors. What I am saying is that the Indic phase of the Aryans involved miscegenated heros (sensible considering the likely population ratios between Aryans and non).

AFAIK Vishnu per se is light blue, Rama is usually a lighter blue than Krishna, indicating perhaps his actual skin color is fair whereas Krishna's is dark.

Nowadays Shiva takes on the color of his throat which was purple because he drank poison from the churning of the sea of milk.

premjan

An interesting comparison: Vishnu=milk and Shiva==yogurt was brought up by Krishnadasa earlier. I wonder if yogurt is not the more universally palatable of the two whereas milk is mostly for kids.

On further thought I think Rama was probably fair in actuality wherease his blue color is just a mark of divinity. Some others were probably somewhat dark, like Arjuna (whose name however means "white"?) and Krishna and Draupadi?

Or is there any mythological significance of blue color? Does it have something to do with historically available pigments or something?