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
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.
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
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
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.
Southern Brahmins are not Southern people who were influenced by Sanskrit. They are Northern people who live in the South. - that's a ridiculous statement and a very racist one.
"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" again a very racist statement , you can't say they managed keep their race pure . its unhistorical and unscientific statement similarly to Nazi racism.
The Brahmins of South India had mixed with ancestral South Indians and brahmins alone didn't drove the agenda , the state religion of Tamil was Hinduism in 200 BC. You know nothing of Indian history and have a sectarian view of Southern and Northern people. And people shouldn't follow Periyar and Ambedkar blindly . They drew their conclusions based on flawed colonial era theory that Aryans were solely north Indians , its not. The commies of India don't hate brahmins or southern/Northern people , we hate the inherent caste structure based on land ownership and economic inequality , whatever Periyar and Ambedkar has said they failed to grasp the main problem behind the caste , which is zamindari system and vast land ownership by upper caste , even Ambedkar has mentioned Northern kshatriyas are more powerful than Brahmins , why ? Because of land ownership .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3BV50PcLw&t=253s ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQX5LlJ7YXg
You can search various research papers mentioned in the video. regarding Brahmins or not , A population living from 200 BC cannot be considered outsider by any logic.
These brahmins drove the sanskritization. This sanskritizing/brahminizing influence was more complete in Maharashtra and Odisha, and was totally complete in the Gangetic Plain This theory is utter BS , There is no indo Gangetic plain problem , Kabir , Meera , Chaitanya , Nanak came from North only. And a whole branch of CPIM originated from North.
you can't say they managed keep their race pure . its unhistorical and unscientific statement similarly to Nazi racism.
You can. Because they did. All you have to do is look at their DNA
Obviously no races are pure. But you can claim purity from a certain reference point, the same way you can say that a recipe needs "20% mayonnaise" even though mayonnaise is inherently a mixture of ingredients.
The following is a list of Indoeuropean Steppe-ancestry fractions for the Brahmins vs. the non-Brahmins of the given state:
Tamils: 20% vs. 3%
Bengalis: 25% vs. 12%
Gujaratis: 26% vs. 14%
Uttar Pradesh: 27% vs. 15%
Tamil Brahmins are basically 75% identical to Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh, meaning only 25% of their ancestry comes from actual South Indians.
In fact, Brahmins of any Indian state are more related to each other than they are to the actual people of the state they reside in.
Now ask yourself: How does such a population stay that pure and distinct for 2000 years? Or 4000 years, in the case of the northern states? The only way to do that is through extreme casteism.
Why did the South have these anti-caste movements like Lingayatism, etc.? Because for whatever reason (mostly geography and distance) Brahmins weren't able to socially and culturally dominate these places, which is why these places still speak Dravidian languages (or in the case of Maharashtra, have much less Steppe-related markers)
It's not racist or nazi to point this out. That's like saying it's racist to point out that the richest Mexicans are Spanish immigrants.
The commies of India don't hate brahmins or southern/Northern people , we hate the inherent caste structure based on land ownership and economic inequality
And wouldn't it make sense that said inequality is going to be worse wherever brahiminization was the highest?
Bro you are a nazi and a racist to the core. 95 percent of Indians don't marry outside the caste, Southerners are no angelic people and are no superior to Northerners . I don't want to hear your justification for your utter BS. I am a communist not a fucking racist ambedkarite who hate brahmins for just for being brahmins . We commies hate the system not the people itself , you are no different from Nazis , just you have a caste cover to justify your northern hatred. You are getting a block from me.
https://www.thehindu.com/data/Just-5-per-cent-of-Indian-marriages-are-inter-caste/article60099878.ece
Show
Even Bihar has higher inter caste marriage than TN.. Lol, so much for caste free society in South India.
Lol, so much for caste free society in South India.
My brother in Shiva, the statistic you just posted lists 2 out of the 4 South Indian states as having "very high" intercaste marriage
and the other three are basically South lite (Goa) or not Gangetic (Punjab and Meghalaya). No idea why Tamil Nadu is so low but I guess I learned something today, apparently casteism is very high there.
Also I hardly know anything about Ambedkarism. I'm just basing this off my my actual experiences talking to many different Indians from many different states. The most reactionary people I've talked to heavily skew northeastern/Gangetic
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
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.
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
Even southern brahmins have these qualities though. It's nothing special 🤣 .
well yeah brahmins in general are from the north
??? there are very much brahmins from the south.
Brahmins originally come from the north
this is race science bs
no it isn't
nope , there are brahmins in the South too.
they're bruhmins, not brahmins /j
I said "from" not "in". And I meant as an original sense, brahmins originally come from the north
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
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.
Southern Brahmins are not Southern people who were influenced by Sanskrit. They are Northern people who live in the South. - that's a ridiculous statement and a very racist one.
"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" again a very racist statement , you can't say they managed keep their race pure . its unhistorical and unscientific statement similarly to Nazi racism.
The Brahmins of South India had mixed with ancestral South Indians and brahmins alone didn't drove the agenda , the state religion of Tamil was Hinduism in 200 BC. You know nothing of Indian history and have a sectarian view of Southern and Northern people. And people shouldn't follow Periyar and Ambedkar blindly . They drew their conclusions based on flawed colonial era theory that Aryans were solely north Indians , its not. The commies of India don't hate brahmins or southern/Northern people , we hate the inherent caste structure based on land ownership and economic inequality , whatever Periyar and Ambedkar has said they failed to grasp the main problem behind the caste , which is zamindari system and vast land ownership by upper caste , even Ambedkar has mentioned Northern kshatriyas are more powerful than Brahmins , why ? Because of land ownership .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3BV50PcLw&t=253s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQX5LlJ7YXg You can search various research papers mentioned in the video. regarding Brahmins or not , A population living from 200 BC cannot be considered outsider by any logic.
These brahmins drove the sanskritization. This sanskritizing/brahminizing influence was more complete in Maharashtra and Odisha, and was totally complete in the Gangetic Plain This theory is utter BS , There is no indo Gangetic plain problem , Kabir , Meera , Chaitanya , Nanak came from North only. And a whole branch of CPIM originated from North.
You can. Because they did. All you have to do is look at their DNA
Obviously no races are pure. But you can claim purity from a certain reference point, the same way you can say that a recipe needs "20% mayonnaise" even though mayonnaise is inherently a mixture of ingredients.
The following is a list of Indoeuropean Steppe-ancestry fractions for the Brahmins vs. the non-Brahmins of the given state:
Tamils: 20% vs. 3%
Bengalis: 25% vs. 12%
Gujaratis: 26% vs. 14%
Uttar Pradesh: 27% vs. 15%
Tamil Brahmins are basically 75% identical to Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh, meaning only 25% of their ancestry comes from actual South Indians.
In fact, Brahmins of any Indian state are more related to each other than they are to the actual people of the state they reside in.
Now ask yourself: How does such a population stay that pure and distinct for 2000 years? Or 4000 years, in the case of the northern states? The only way to do that is through extreme casteism.
Why did the South have these anti-caste movements like Lingayatism, etc.? Because for whatever reason (mostly geography and distance) Brahmins weren't able to socially and culturally dominate these places, which is why these places still speak Dravidian languages (or in the case of Maharashtra, have much less Steppe-related markers)
It's not racist or nazi to point this out. That's like saying it's racist to point out that the richest Mexicans are Spanish immigrants.
And wouldn't it make sense that said inequality is going to be worse wherever brahiminization was the highest?
Bro you are a nazi and a racist to the core. 95 percent of Indians don't marry outside the caste, Southerners are no angelic people and are no superior to Northerners . I don't want to hear your justification for your utter BS. I am a communist not a fucking racist ambedkarite who hate brahmins for just for being brahmins . We commies hate the system not the people itself , you are no different from Nazis , just you have a caste cover to justify your northern hatred. You are getting a block from me. https://www.thehindu.com/data/Just-5-per-cent-of-Indian-marriages-are-inter-caste/article60099878.ece
My brother in Shiva, the statistic you just posted lists 2 out of the 4 South Indian states as having "very high" intercaste marriage
and the other three are basically South lite (Goa) or not Gangetic (Punjab and Meghalaya). No idea why Tamil Nadu is so low but I guess I learned something today, apparently casteism is very high there.
Also I hardly know anything about Ambedkarism. I'm just basing this off my my actual experiences talking to many different Indians from many different states. The most reactionary people I've talked to heavily skew northeastern/Gangetic