https://twitter.com/IndiccAmsha/status/1742551206868771087?s=19

Show
Show

  • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
    hexbear
    3
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is a Gangetic problem, not an Indian problem

    South India and Maharashtra have far less fundamentalism (I'm not trying to be chauvinist here, I've heard this from multiple non-desis who only learned what these provinces were after visiting India)

    There's a strange type of "exclusively punch down + religious fundamentalism" brainworm complex that peaks in Northern India, including Bengal. It resembles the right-wing rhetoric that I see from certain Latinos

    • @mughaloid@lemmygrad.ml
      hexagon
      hexbear
      3
      6 months ago

      lol , no it is because in Maharashtra and in South India there was a anti vedic movement (Periyar , Ambedkar , Ligyayat , Joytiba Phule ) where religious reforms were carried out but I won't give these states free pass . Maha is ruled by Sena type extremists and TN has considerable casteism. Its a whitewash to say south India doesn't have religious problem.

      • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
        hexbear
        4
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Sure, but just anecdotally speaking, every Indian I've talked to online (so a few dozen) who had takes like the OP tweet ended up being northern. Very often Gangetic, Nepali Bahuns, some Assamese, a few from Uttar Pradesh, a few Bengalis. Not as many Punjabis as you'd think given their obvious ancestry differences.

        a decent number of them have a weird combination of reactionary punching down + sucking up to white nationalists + defeatism

        All of these people were english-fluent enough that I could understand them perfectly, so I'd imagine direct material conditions are not the problem, and that it has more to do with the previous history of the gangetic region and the cultural quirks that materialized from it

                • @mughaloid@lemmygrad.ml
                  hexagon
                  hexbear
                  1
                  6 months ago

                  No, there was sanskritization in the South during many hindu dynasties in Tamil Nadu it happened after 200 BC.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_South_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatanatyam

                  • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
                    hexbear
                    1
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    That's irrelevant. Being influenced by Sanskrit is no more noteworthy than China being influenced by English.

                    Southern Brahmins are not Southern people who were influenced by Sanskrit. They are Northern people who live in the South.

                    Southern Brahmins have elevated Steppe ancestry and R1a fractions, just like Northern Brahmins.

                    To the casual observer this just sounds like "calipers" but the real significance is that these people, regardless of when they got here, have against all numerical odds, managed to keep themselves "genetically pure" for a very long time, and such an act can only be achieved via active caste-based discrimination. If they began arriving at 200 BC like you say, rather than later, that just makes it worse--imagine keeping yourself ethnically separate from the 95% of the population around you for over 2000 years lmao.

                    These brahmins drove the sanskritization. This sanskritizing/brahminizing influence was more complete in Maharashtra and Odisha, and was totally complete in the Gangetic Plain.

                    Speaking a Dravidian language with Sanskrit influence is very different from being completely culturally captive to a Brahmin elite and all their whims--which is likely where the dysfunction of the Gangetic region comes from.