ChristianSkeptic

hinduwoman:...What one needs to base the argument on is solid archeological findings, and all the other points Ipetrich raised.

ChristianSkeptic: Greetings Hinduwoman
I am glad to take advantage of this chance to dance with you (again).

Surely, as my case demonstrates there are alternative way of getting to the truth of the matter apart from archeological findings.

What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of my case?

ChristianSkeptic

phaedrus: Dum di Dum

ChristianSkeptic: This response is really cute. Tell me something about yourself (your gender in particular I prefer to dance with women rather than men) and what you think of my case.

I would like to also mention that your post in LP's thread were very good. Granted I think you all were being reductionistic.

phaedrus

ChristianSkeptic

This response is really cute. Tell me something about yourself (your gender in particular I prefer to dance with women rather than men) and what you think of my case.

Myself ? what do you want to know about moi. Gender well last time i went to the loo i think it was the XY chromosome....and regarding ur case...u have certainily taken a different approach compared to the long thread on this board on the same topic. And the merits of it lets wait till aravindan responds....

Granted I think you all were being reductionistic.

Different discussions on the same topic require different approaches

tantra_i

CS:

You have no evidence to the contrary. Your line of reasoning is erratic.
The AIT is redundant now.

If you wish to get enlightened please read
David Frawley's book on the Myth of Aryan Invasion of India.. it will show you the light.

ChristianSkeptic

tantra_i :CS ...Your line of reasoning is erratic.

How do you know what you believe is true?

...please read David Frawley's book on the Myth of Aryan Invasion of India.. it will show you the light.

CS: Please enlighten me, and critque my case in particular, with your grasp of Frawley's book.

ChristianSkeptic

Hinduwoman: …white races are superior…a black [person] is automatically lacking in courage and leadership qualities. so many Shudras, reject it.

ChristianSkeptic: Why not all, what is your position and how do you know your position is true?

Hinduwoman: Many argue that this means the upper castes have no right to live in India. Finally, for many this has become a question of national identity: if you do not belong to this country you cannot be a true son of the soil and a patriot.

CS: Power corrupts.

hinduwoman: I think they are wrong because assimilation is more important

CS: I agree, but it most be asked, assimilation, on whose terms?

hinduwoman: It would also help if many academics would stop writing things like "the sudra women were served up to the libedinious appetite of rapacious Brahmins" --- I am pretty tired of reading sentences like this in both Western and Indian texts.

CS: Despite the title of “academics” many such people are writing from personal experience or guilt. What victims need are positive experiences with twice born individuals.

I’ll give you an analogy from U.S. history.

At least most black Americans abhor, probably by a vast majority the confederate flag as the South upheld it during the U.S. Civil War as their symbol. The confederate flag is associated with violence against blacks as the terrorist group the Klu Klux Klan and racial segregationists also used it as their symbol.

Today the argument is made that since the flag was not initially used as a symbol of racial domination and oppression then there is nothing wrong with showing the flag today.

My response to the proponents of the confederate flag is to ask, When was the last time or how often is it the case that when a black woman is stranded on the highway with a flat tire that a truck with the confederate flag prominently displayed and a rifle hanging in the back window has ever stopped and the gentleman gets out and tips his hat to her (shows her respect) and fix her flat and drives off into the sunset?

At first the black woman would be terrified, but as the gentleman carries on with his act of kindness she would take notice and tell others what happened.

In short if the image of the confederate flag in the black American mind is to be changed, it must come about through conditioned association with kindness.

I think the same principle applies to India.

If twice-borns are to change the image of the “rapacious Brahmins” then more Brahmins most step forward and take direct action (form real friendships with dalits and repel other Brahmins from such acts) to change their image.

It is interesting to point out that this method will involve having Brahmins suffer rejection.

So hinduwoman when will you start your group?

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: ChristianSkeptic ]

lpetrich

LP: Several lengthy posts that mainly contained general stuff on methodology.

CS: But methodology is cool , and it can be sexy too.

LP: However, those posts did not really add anything; they were not connected to anything specific, which disappointed me.

LP: I have lived in the "West" all my life; the farthest I've ever gotten from the US has been Russia.

CS: So you do not deny the point that your approach is reductionistic, with all its limitations and value.

LP: How am I supposed to have a "reductionist" approach?

LP: These specific issues are very important to the question of whether any sort of "Aryan invasion" had taken place.

CS: Yes they are “very” important, but by no means are they exhaustive. Do you agree? I also like to think that my approach covered more ground rather than debating the absence or presence of horse bones.

LP: Actually, the question of horse bones is much more to the point than a lot of generalized methodology with no clear connection to the problem at hand. Horse bones are important becuase they are physical evidence of the presence of horses. And horses are important in the AIT question because they are mentioned repeatedly and prominently in the Vedas, and are never depicted in Harappan artwork, despite the depiction of several other kinds of large animals. By comparison, cow bones are much less helpful, since domestic bovines are both depicted in Harappan art and mentioned in the Vedas.

LP: …If horses had been as abundant as cows and elephants in Harappan society, then why are there pictures of cows and elephants but not horses?

CS: Absence of evidence, thus far, is not evidence of absence.

LP: And why is that supposed to be an absolute principle? Absence of evidence, when that evidence ought to be present, is often considered evidence of absence. Why make pictures of bovines and elephants and crocodiles and tigers and antelopes and rhinos, but not horses? CS, you are evading this crucial question.

LP: Language is a human universal, and much of language is essentially independent of other cultural features.

CS: My point is that if culture does not exist then language would not exist. ...

LP: So what? I don't see how that's any argument. Much of language tends to be independent of other cultural features; in fact, when one does historical linguistics, one finds that the most durable linguistic features are the dullest and least glamorous ones, like basic vocabulary and various grammatical features, especially grammatical irregularities. Those associated with specific cultural features tend to be less durable, and often vulnerable to borrowing. Consider that English has numerous words for various sorts of leaders, many of them borrowed, with some having had long histories of previous borrowing.

lpetrich

Hinduwoman: …white races are superior…a black [person] is automatically lacking in courage and leadership qualities. so many Shudras, reject it.

ChristianSkeptic: Why not all, what is your position and how do you know your position is true?

LP: She's describing one common stereotype of the AIT, which implies that the earlier inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent were natural-born losers simply because they had been conquered. As to why the Aryans "won", it was a matter of having superior technology, military skill, and social organization; they were used to living in semidesert areas, wandering long distances, and fighting off rivals.

Hinduwoman: Many argue that this means the upper castes have no right to live in India. Finally, for many this has become a question of national identity: if you do not belong to this country you cannot be a true son of the soil and a patriot.

CS: Power corrupts.

LP: Also, if you look back enough, everybody outside of Africa is an immigrant. The next question is, of course, whose ancestors arrived when.

hinduwoman: It would also help if many academics would stop writing things like "the sudra women were served up to the libedinious appetite of rapacious Brahmins" --- I am pretty tired of reading sentences like this in both Western and Indian texts.

LP:
Socially-dominant men have often had lots of wives and concubines and mistresses and girlfriends; I'm sure that that would be true not only of Brahmans, but also of Kshatriyas and Vaisyas.

CS: Despite the title of “academics” many such people are writing from personal experience or guilt. What victims need are positive experiences with twice born individuals.

LP:
Who are "twice born individuals"?

CS:
I’ll give you an analogy from U.S. history.

At least most black Americans abhor, probably by a vast majority the confederate flag as the South upheld it during the U.S. Civil War as their symbol. The confederate flag is associated with violence against blacks as the terrorist group the Klu Klux Klan and racial segregationists also used it as their symbol.

Today the argument is made that since the flag was not initially used as a symbol of racial domination and oppression then there is nothing wrong with showing the flag today. [on how people might someday end up associating the Confederate flag with Good Things...]

LP:
Not a very good analogy. The Southern states' leaders made protecting slavery a very high priority; they not only got such laws as the Fugitive Slave Act passed, they sent gangs of slave-catchers into the northern states. And their official statements indicate that protecting slavery was a high priority with them; they only started talking about states' rights *after* the war.

And I am seriously baffled at how the Confederacy is supposed to be worth crying for.

hinduwoman

Brahmins seem to be the pet hate: a kind of code for every oppression that has taken place in hindu society.
Twiceborn individuals covers the three higher castes, with arguments going on as to who belongs to them all the time!
Positive experience --- I am not sure what is meant by that. For example, neither my father's nor mother's family feel animus against the caste system because in living memory at least they do not remember any brutal oppression. Since my mother's family had been zamindars, I am sure they did a lot of oppressing in their time, and certainly never would have put up with any uppity airs by brahmins in their employ (my aunt kicked out the Brahmin cook, though I don't remember for what) --- but they are so to speak once-born.
Even many members of dalit castes who have now risen in society have no qualms oppressing other dalit castes.
On the other hands, many reform movements had been started by Brahmins.

hinduwoman

Hi Christiansceptic, glad to dance with you, but something sedate please!

I am not arguing in favour of anti-ait theory; I am saying that literary evidence alone is inadequate.

In the first place, Smith is very biased. I know that even biased people might speak the truth, but it means we should look at their evidence more rigorously. Look at how he uses words: it is 'vigorous' barbarians vs 'effete' inhabitants, very telling!. Again he says Aryans were 'intellectually superior class'. According to his own theory the Aryans were nomadic while the natives lived in moderntype cities (better planned than many important Indian cities, that is for sure!), traded with faraway countries and enjoyed a rich cultural life as evidenced by archeological remains like jewellery, seals, toys etc. Yet he is in love with the theory of superior whiteconquerers and so insists that it is the civilized race who is inferior. I doubt whether he would use the same terms in respect of Vandals and Romans.

The Vedas do not mention any exterior homeland. They might have forgotten, but that is why it is equally probable that they originated in some other part of India. No one has even identified with certainty where Saraswati river is and what is the Bharati river mentioned along with Saraswati?

Again the proper term is not Aryan, but Arya which means noble, not pure. Of course a distinction is meade between Aryas and non-Aryas, but in the literature it is based on knowing Vedas. The writers declared the Dasa/dasyus to be people who do not follow the rituals of the Vedic tribes. In Atharvaveda we get reference to Vratyas, which means someone without Vedic lore. But they are also described as noble and powerful and apparently there was a kind of ceremony to conduct them into the Vedic community proper. Again varna is a tricky concept. Certainly it means colour, but it is only white Europeans who automatically jumped to the conclusion of caste being colour based. Varna, among a host of other things, also means the colour of goldpainted on the touchstone, or the halo around a god.

Again the varnasharmadharma by itself doesnot prove anything. Of course it is possible that the conquered became delegated to the lower ranks. But it could equally have risen naturally from functional divisions. The Vedic communities did not have this elaborate division at first, it is mentioned only in X Mandala of Rig Veda, a later addition. After all, even in Mohenjadoar and Harrappa the citadels were probably occupied by ruling classes, not by labourers and peasants, i.e, the Shudras. Again the untouchables became untouchables because of their professions: they are tanners, butchers and handlers of corpses and carriers of nightsoil (this caste came into existance very late in history).

Following this logic, the untouchables must have been conquered by Shudras. Finally, the Shudras are in mythological literature considered as belong to the Arya/Aryan tribe proper. The 'antyajya' are outside the fold of varnasharma: they are the tribals like Bhils who did accept all customs of hindu society. They are not outside society, but different laws apply to them. Even in Arthashastra the Shudras are included among the Aryas. They were forbidden to read or even hear the Vedas, but all other knowledge was open to them.
Smith makes a big deal about Brahmins trying to guard their racial purity. But actually legends are overflowing with examples of opposite: Brahmins frequently legitimately married non-Aryas. In historical times intercaste marriages were the norm than the exception. Of course many complained. But it is from the middle ages that caste purity became obssesive and finally all such unions were banned. Smith however prefers to overlook this evidence. In this context notice the phrasing: "selfrestraint of the Brahmins" --- in other words, the mingling of blood between upper and lower castes is inherently bad.

That is why I think archoelogical evidence is of more help. Your writings on methodology is too general. It explains why invasion is probable, but cannot settle the debate.
Incidentally, if Mohenjadaro civilization is Dravidian, then why are typical cities (as with public baths and citadels) absent from the South?


Non-sequieter:
what I object to most strongly is the peculiar picture of Indian history many scholars seem to have due to AIT. If you read some of their papers Indian history seem to have been a static one. The Aryans conquered and that is that. Nothing noteworthy happened, except that poor shudras got ground down exceedingly fine by oppression of the uppercastes. Sheesh! for heaven's sake, we shudras make up four-fifths of the population: what in the world do they think we were doing all this time?