Jump to content

Talk:Dravidian peoples/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relation to Africans and Australians

[edit]

Uh, Dravidians ARE closely related to Africans and Australians. This is supported by the fact that a migration wave of humans related to modern Australians moving through India: Recent single-origin hypothesis

Along with the works of Carleton S. Coon: Australoid

This, which shows heavy genetic admixture from Australoid groups throughout India, more and more prevalent the farther south you go: http://members.tripod.com/%7Etanmoy/bengal/races.html

Along with http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/pasa.html and http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/bengal.html.

Yes, I know the last two links are from an afro-centric historian site, but the Australoid/African admixture in India is undeniable. It's different from afrocentric crackpots grabbing at straws over the facial features of Egyptian statues or saying Aristotle stole from Alexandria, or that Beethoven was half-black. This is real and should be included.

If we can find credible sources then we can create a sub section under 'modern views to talk about the Australian link RaveenS

Organized the article

[edit]

I took the liberty to organize the article as it was a jumble of too many views sometimes not relating to the subject matter on hand. Please forgive me for any transgressions. I think the article is better now. We still have to do more pruning and adding to make it truly encyclopedic.RaveenS

Views from Pakistan and Bangladesh

[edit]

I have read official documentations (such as tourist advertisement in Newsweek by the Government of B'desh) that claims the people of Bangaldesh are Dravidian although they speak Indo-Aryan lanaguage. Pakistani websites claiming that the substratum of all Pakistani languages are Dravidian and thus they are not Aryan but Dravidian. These have to incorporated as part of the Political ramifications section.

"Racial classification"

[edit]

I doubt that the recently added reference Khan, Hayat. Differences between Pakistanis and Indians. 2006. August 26, 2006. http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/differences.html is of significance. An essay on a GeoCities homepage? Looks like a bad joke. Also, is it intended to be a reference for what classical anthropologists did in the past or a reference for an assumed fact? --Pjacobi 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be removed. Is not credible RaveenS 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidians and Vedic culture

[edit]

This is about the definition of what and who are Dravidian people, if such a concept is exits. About the prevalence of Vedic culture in South India, it is a different subject matter altogether and I have created a stub and linked it here. Please expand it properly. Thanks RaveenS

Also the external links about Aryan Dravidian controversy belong in the appropriate linked article called Arayna Invasion theory (history and controversy). 64.201.162.1

Removing fair use images

[edit]

The images that are provided with this article, are not covered by a free license. They have been uploaded on fair use claims, which do not allow them to be used on this article. Their use would amount to copyright violation. Thus, I am removing the pictures from the article. Please do not revert back. Thank you.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you were dinner monitor in school or register collector.... ;)

Merge Proposal

[edit]

These articles appear to be about the same subject, or close enough for a merge considering the small size of the Dravida article. Thoughts? Brad T. Cordeiro 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be merged. It's the same subject. Paul B 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text suggested by 168.167.181.22

[edit]

(moved from article page by BostonMA talk 14:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There could be some logic to this. As in the tamil (the oldest dravidian language)tongue, the word for homeland is 'Ur'. Ur was the first city of the world in the Middle East region. Other aspect, perhaps by the sea expeditions of the South Indian Kings, is the remarkable cultural similiarities between the people of East Asia and South Indians.

This page is a joke. There is no such thing as a Dravidian

[edit]

I cant believe there are still people who think there are people who call themselves Dravidian.....THe term Dravidian is a racist term made up by Euorpeans....In India nooooobody calls themself Dravidian.....I live in America and ive never met one person from south India who says there Dravidian.....I dont know anyone that takes pride in saying there Dravidian......And a big chunk of people dont even know what a Dravidian means!......Dont u people get it by now!....Its 2006!.....The Aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ANd the label of Dravidian is a joke to!.....Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India! ARYAN818 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian is a classification for a family of aboriginal ethnic groups throughout the Indian Sub-continent from Pakistan all the way down to Sri Lanka. Just like the term Oriental was used as a clssification of the ethnic groups in China and Japan. You are right that the average South Indian would not say that he or she is a Dravidian, just like a Chinese or a Japanese would not tell you that they are an Oriental. Also, one cannot say that Dravidians are just only in South India. Even though they are densely populated in Southern India and Sri Lanka, they are scattered throughout Central and Norther India too. In the case of Central India and some other parts, there have been intermarriage between both Dravidians and Indo-Aryans. Also, as far as linguistics go, there are Dravidians of Central India and Northern India who speak Indo-Aryan languages, and those whose language is mixed in between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan words. So, to say that Dravidians do not exist, is like saying that Indo-Aryans do not exist. I understand the importance of the unity of India is through diversity. Live and let live. Regards.

Wiki Raja 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what are ur goals? Proving that there are 2 different Races in India? Are u an expert in such things? Or let me u ask one thing.... Did u ever met a "DRAVIDIAN" in real life? The term Dravidian is not considered insulting, like Oriental is....get it, "Dravdians" do not exist but Tamils, Malayalis,Telugus, Kannadas and others do.. Asian2duracell

Off the top of my head, I would estimate that the majority of political parties in Tamil Nadu identify themselves as Dravidian. --BostonMA talk 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But most of the Tamil People dont identify them as Dravidians, that term is outdated. And neither do Northern Indians identify them as Aryans... (most dont), everyone identify him/herself with his/her ethnicity...like Punjabi, Gujarati,Bengali, Tamil, Telugu or whatever Asian2duracell

Dravidian project

[edit]

For some odd reason, this page on Dravidian people tends to be talking more about the Indo-Aryan civilizatin instead of focussing on the Dravidian family of ethnicities. Much work and research needs to be done on this page. If anyone would like to start a Dravidian project please let me know. This project with include language, ethnicity, dance, religion, and more on the ethnic groups which belong to the Dravidian family. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need that...

[edit]

Someone ruined the hole article with his/her afrocentric view, why do people who even dont know what "Dravidian" is editing this article.... this article should be a reedited. finally there is no RACE called Dravidians... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian2duracell (talk • contribs)

Neutrality and POV of this article is disputed

[edit]

The neutrality of this article is disputed with heavy POV. This page has been vandalized. The topic on Dravidians talk more about the Indo-Arya people, which should be posted on that particular article. Furthermore, there are several users who are attempting to discredit the Dravidian people for the existence. This will not be tollerated. Administration has been notified.

Wiki Raja 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you care about that? I dont think ur "Dravidian" at all. The topic on Dravidians talk more about the Indo-Arya people Its because people seem to understand that there are actually not much diffrence between both ethnicities. It would be better for u and everyone else if u let others, who atleast know a little bit, write this article. Rather than writing ur own POV.Asian2duracell

FYI: I have studied broadly on Dravidian civilizations and various other cultures. Whether one is Dravidian or not should not be an issue in regards to contributing to any article on Wikipedia. This is an academic site and not a personal blog page. Please treat it as such. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and incivil remarks when communicating with other users on Wikipedia. Thank you. Wiki Raja 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an academic site and not a personal blog page. exactly thats why, ur comments are not required.People Dont want to get wrong informations. I dont know where or on when u studied "Dravidian" civlisations, but ur comparisons with Somalis, Native Australians and Others, wont help either. This is about Indians ("Dravidians") and not Africans or Australians. This article is well documented with sources and declarations. Why do u think u know it better than the others do? Maybe they studied "Dravidian" civilisation too. Btw, I've not even wrote one single sentence on that article, so I'm not defending myself. Can u please tell us where u studied "Dravidian" civilisation? I havent attacked u, if u feel offened I apologise for my misbehaviour. Asian2duracell

It is encouraging that you are willing to apologize for possibly having offended another contributor. However, more helpful would be an adjustment of your attitude and of the manner in which you approach other editors in the first place. Snide remarks (I think we're all aware this is not a "personal blog page") and personal attacks such as that expressed below ("ur Afrocentric POV is not wished here") are unhelpful and do nothing to improve the quality of the article or the spirit of collaboration necessary to produce quality work. Nor does repeated, block reversion of the edits of others text without explanation (edit-warring), here or in the article Tamil people accomplish anything useful. If you have specific criticisms about the accuracy or appropriateness of specific passages, then it would be helpful if you discuss them substantively on the discussion pages, refraining from future uncivil remarks and serial, edit warring/wholesale reversion of the contributions of others. deeceevoice 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you think the current version should be reedit completly strange, from a caucasian heritage to a negroid. Every thing is explained in a neutral form, with a source. Ur African heritage-theory based version claiming IndusValley and other not for a certainty prooven "Facts". Ur editing is very anti-Northindian (Indo-Aryan), and anti-Brahmin. I think in that way you will hurt feelings of lot of "Dravidians" too. There is no rivalry between both communities, and there never been.(U reedited the Indo-Aryan / Iranian into a Indo-Aryan / Dravidian altercation.) I assume you to be of African heritage, after I took a look at your profile. This article exists times ago, but not one single Tamil ever wrote anything about a African-heritage of the Tamil people. Dont say it is because the White man teached us that. We all know White "scientist" in the past were racial oriented. Nut nowadays much has changed. Those studies about the heritage of the "Dravidian People" are made in a neutral form. My question is, why do you think that this should be crap? Political Motivation is not good in teaching others, we all know what happened in the past. Asian2Duracell

An appalling mess

[edit]

This article is replete with just about every pro-Aryan cliche known regarding Dravidians and Indian history and society and is appallingly POV. It requires urgent attention!!! deeceevoice 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dravidian" history is Indian history. deeceevoice ur Afrocentric POV is not wished here. You tried to prove in Black People discussion that "Dravidians" are Black, but u failed. Now you try it here. Stop removing or rewrite the parts which dont suit ur conception. Asian2Duracell

Your opinion as to my motives does not qualify as any reasoned explanation for your blanket revert -- wholesale -- of individual edits I made and for which I meticulously provided explanations and/or documentation. Do not revert unless and until you have addressed the issues I've raised. deeceevoice 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Editors

[edit]

Is Herodotus considered an expert in anthropology? That is, would modern anthropologists give weigth to his opinions? If not, it appropriate to give weight to the opinions of Herodotus in this article? --BostonMA talk 22:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on any subject may be specialists in disparate areas. Herodotus is widely known as the "Father of History." An excerpt from the wiki article bearing his name:

Discoveries made since the end of the 19th century have helped to rehabilitate Herodotus' reputation a great deal. The archaeological study of the now submerged ancient Egyptian city of Heraklion and the recovery of the so-called 'Naucratis stela' lends substantial credence to Herodotus' previously unsupported claim that Heraklion was founded under the Egyptian New Kingdom. [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/heracleum.htm]. Because of this recent increase in respect for his accuracy, as well as the quality and content of his observations, Herodotus is now recognized as a pioneer not only in history, but in ethnography and anthropology as well[emphasis added].

Yes, it most certainly is appropriate to quote Herodotus here, or in any scholarly publication. deeceevoice 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thank you for your quote. I am still somewhat skeptical. Today we have access to genetics studies, historical linguistics, a mass of archeological data and so forth. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Herodotus associated Dravidians with Ethiopians primarily on the basis of superficial features. However, we know today that features such as dark skin have evolved in a number of peoples who are only distantly related. Herodotus may have been a pioneer, but I am not convinced that makes him an expert by current standards. Galen was also a pioneer in his field. Where Galen is correct, he deserves credit. However, he is not an authority on his own. Similarly, I think with Herodotus. If modern anthropologists, geneticists, linguists etc. were to confirm the affinity of Dravidians with Ethiopians, then I think it would be correct to credit Herodotus with having made the observation at a very early time. But in the absence modern opinion amongst experts in support of this theory, I would think that Herodotus' opinion should get very little weight. --BostonMA talk 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but scholarly publications are in the habit of quoting Herodotus, as his observations are some of the earliest on record. As is obvious from the information cited above, he is considered an authoritative source -- your personal opinions notwithstanding. Furthermore, there are other sources -- and non-Afrocentric ones at that corroborate the so-called "Afrocentric" information presented herein, most notably imminent geneticist Spencer Wells, who has conducted groundbreaking research into the origins of humankind. This information has been deleted wholesale repeatedly from the article by edit warrior User:Asian2duracell. The article also treats as fact the theory that there was no Aryan invasion of India, no Persian attempt at wholesale extermination of the black peoples of the continent, when this is supported by ancient accounts, as well as archaeological evidence. The article also makes the ridiculous claim that the black- and brown-skinned Dravidians are from the same genetic stock as the highly miscegenated northern Indians -- a fact also not borne out by genetic studies -- as Wells and others repeatedly have stated. Again, this information was deleted from the text, so you may be pardoned for assuming there is no scientific or modern-day evidence or mainstream/non-Afrocentric scholarly opinion to support the notion of a black, African identity/origin of the Dravidian peoples.

You asked a question about Herodotus, and I answered it. I doubt seriously that any editor or administrator worth his or her salt on this website would take issue with me on this point.

Further, you are asked to keep in mind that, whatever your personal assumptions, what you "think" or what your "guess" is, none of that is germane in any way to this article. (I will tell you, however, that your "guess" about Herodotus is incorrect.) It is patently absurd for you to suggest that Herodotus, the Father of History, should not be quoted in this article. deeceevoice 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment that "It is patently absurd for you to suggest that Herodotus, the Father of History, should not be quoted in this article." Please either demonstrate that I made such a suggestion, or retract your statement.
The question that I have been attempting to grapple with is how much weight should be accorded to Herodotus as an expert on the subject of the kinship between Dravidians and Ethiopians. If the consensus of expert opinion is that Dravidians are indeed closely related to Ethiopians, then I have no problem giving Herodotus credit. The problem is this. Wikipedia articles should present the significant opinions of experts on the topic. Does the opinion of someone dead for 2 millenia count as a significant opinion of experts on the topic? Herodotus may have been an expert in his day, but I don't believe that makes him an expert today, even if he may have provided invaluable information for the experts of today. In addition to providing invaluable information, Herodotus may have been right about a great many things. However, I would imagine that most experts of today might find the accounts of Herodotus useful, but not necessarily reliable or accurate enough to be an "authoritative source" on the subject of whether Dravidians are closely related to Ethiopians. BostonMA 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read my above comments. You would do well to consider that Herodotus' findings are not isolated or unsupported by other, independent findings/research. As the article presently reads (with the edit-warred version by Asian2duracell in place), it is blatantly POV, presenting theories -- and largely discredited theories at that (such as the one stating there was no Aryan invasion of India) -- as incontrovertible fact. Finally, my concern is that the information be provided, balanced and properly sourced. The question about due weight is one for the individual reader to decide. deeceevoice 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment that I "may be pardoned for assuming there is no scientific or modern-day evidence or mainstream/non-Afrocentric scholarly opinion to support the notion of a black, African identity/origin of the Dravidian peoples.", please either support your claim that I assumed that there is no scientific or modern-day evidence... or retract your statement. --BostonMA talk 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You: "If modern anthropologists, geneticists, linguists etc. were to confirm the affinity of Dravidians with Ethiopians, then I think it would be correct to credit Herodotus with having made the observation at a very early time. But in the absence modern opinion amongst experts in support of this theory, I would think that Herodotus' opinion should get very little weight." deeceevoice 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and finally on this point: our task is to present the information as intelligently, coherently and encyclopedically, and in as balanced a manner as possible (a task at which the article in its current, edit-warred state fails miserably) -- not to mediate opinion or pass judgment. That is the task of the reader. deeceevoice 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you would agree that there is a difference between mentioning an opinion, and giving weight to an opinion. Wikipedia mentions all sorts of theories, such as J. J. Becher's Phlogiston theory. However, it is one thing to trace the history of an idea. It is another to treat an early proponent of such an idea as an authoritative source. Please retract your assertion that I suggested that Herodotus should not be mentioned.
I agree that it is our task to present the information as intelligently, coherently and encyclopedically, and in as balanced a manner as possible. Regarding "mediating or passing judgement", I disagree. WP:NPOV does not state that all opinions are to be given equal weight, but that all significant opinions should be given weight appropriate to their weight among experts in the appropriate field. It is the responsibility of editors to evaluate (by surveying the appropriate reliable sources) whether a view is held by a significant section of the community of experts. --BostonMA talk 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(What's with your preoccupation with retractions? Fuhgeddabouddit.)

Again, there's nothing I've seen in the article that appears to give undue emphasis to Herodotus' observations. The text in the section on Greek Legend counterbalances the observations of Herodotus with additional information, so the only thing I have to go on is that you object to the text as it is presented. Would you rather Herodotus not be mentioned at all? Do you have alternative language that you are proposing? (Incidentally, I removed the stuff on Madam Blavatsky. She's more known as a mystic and Theosophist than a historian. There must be a better source to cite than HPB!

"It is the responsibility of editors to evaluate (by surveying the appropriate reliable sources) whether a view is held by a significant section of the community of experts." Again, the text regarding Herodotus' observations is counterbalanced by other information. Further, I find it curious that you can write what you have and yet voice no objection whatsoever to the blatant POV statements, vagueness (attributing opinions to anonymous "Dravidians")and weasel words (e.g., "Many Indians believe....") of the edits made by Asian2duracell and his blatant edit warring. deeceevoice 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preoccupation with retractions is this. I think that discussion is far more valuable when the participants understand and honestly recognize the positions of the other parties. Since there may be a lengthy discussion involved, I would like cut short any tendency toward misrepresentation. I see that you would like to change the subject to Madam Blavatsky, weasel words etc. Those are good topics for discussion. However, I am a bit unsure at the moment of how fruitful a discussion between us might be. My experience so for has not been encouraging. --BostonMA talk 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your issues, and certainly I am free to raise my own -- but you haven't even bothered to answer my questions. Again: your complaint appears to be that somehow Herodotus' views have been given undue weight. Specifically, how so? And how to you suggest the wording be changed? If you raise a general complaint, but cannot specifically cite what your objections are, then it is difficult to take you seriously. And even if one were to assume your complaints have substance, there is no way to address or redress them without your pointing out specific language to which you object. You're, in effect, wasting our time. I'm still awaiting a substantive response. deeceevoice 04:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not formed any solid opinion on the dispute between yourself and Asian2duracell. I was trying to explore the topic so that I might form an opinion. I certainly am not going to do so prematurely, and so I am not going to suggest any changes in wording at this point. It has been suggested that you have been over-emphasizing the relationship between Dravidians and Ethiopians. I am suspecting that may be true, although, as I have said, I don't have a firm opinion yet. I am concerned about the prominence given to Herodotus. Yes the Greeks had opinions regarding races. Yes, these opinions deserve mention in this encyclopedia. However, I am concerned that the article may be discussing the possible relationship between Dravidians and Ethiopians in overabundance. Attributing to me positions that I do not hold, does not help to sway me toward your side. After pointing out your misattribution, your response has not been acknowledgment of such misattribution, but "Fuhgeddabouddit". Now it may be that your version is really great. I will attempt to evaluate objectively in spite of the obstacles you have thrown in my way. However, please try to understand that you are making it difficult for me to sympathize with you in your dispute with Asian2duracell. --BostonMA talk 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off -- no offense intended -- I'm not seeking your "sympathy"; I didn't call you in. Asian2duracell did.[1] Good thing I didn't waste my time doing so, too. Because from where I sit, you've made absolutely no attempt to, as you write, "sympathize with [me] in [my] dispute with Asian2duracell."
You came here at his invitation, and so far you've failed to address herein his nasty, combative attitude, his blanket reverts and edit warring, or his blatant POV, highly skewed content. And you now put forward the fact that I've dismissed your, IMO, over-the-top demands for retractions, as a weak pretext for not dealing with the far more serious issues I raise (and possibly exiting this matter altogether as quickly as you interjected yourself), or my wholly reasonable request that you merely specify your objections to the information regarding Herodotus. You've offered absolutely nothing helpful. You write you "have not formed any solid opinion on the dispute between yourself and Asian2duracell," but your actions so far, by default, clearly indicate that you have. From where I sit, your "intervention" here so far lacks credibility -- utterly.
  • Secondly, I contributed nothing about Herodotus; however, I don't have a problem with the degree to which his findings are discussed in the article. If one wants to discuss "weight" or undue bias, then let's talk about the pronounced Eurocentric -- and erroneously so -- slant of the article as Asian2duracell would have it read.

Let's examine some of my contributions to the article so far. I'm crunching a deadline, so let's go with every other edit.

  • First edit: I changed, "According to population geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, almost all Indians are genetically Caucasian...." to: "According to population geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, the Indians his team sampled were closest genetically to Caucasians." My change is a correction. Race is an unscientific notion. One cannot be "genetically Caucasian"; one can be more closely genetically related (or not) to Caucasians. I qualified the statement, because (obviously) Cavalli-Sforza's findings relate only to the popultaion(s) he sampled -- and no one else. This is important to note because of the tremendous diversity among Indian populations -- from the highly miscegenated Hindus in the north, to the Tamils, Dalits and tribal African groups in the south. Several scholars have called Cavalli-Sforza's findings into question, stating that it is unscientific to make a single, categorical blanket statement about the genetic makeup of East Indians precisely because they are so diverse. Spencer Wells makes specific mention of this fact. (More on Wells later.)
  • Third edit, to the section titled "Similarities with peoples of northern India." This entire section is blatantly POV garbage -- and I'm being charitable. My edits [2][3] speak for themselves.
  • Fifth edit: I deleted the section on "Dravidian claims" for a couple of reasons. It is exceedingly poorly written, so much so that it is difficult to ascertain the validity or even relevance of some of the information provided. Weasel words, a quote so truncated that it is impossible to tell what "extraordinary race" the author is referring to; however, the reader clearly is meant to jump to the conclusion that the phrase refers to Hindus. Citing claims of nameless "Dravidians" with no commentary on who these people are, or where or when these assertions were made is completely unacceptable. I find it amazing that you can question the inclusion of information about Herodotus and complain about the weight given to his opinions (when they are offset in the same section by other text) and not utter a peep about such thinly veiled, absurd, unscholarly, POV contentions presented with no attribution, no citation -- and no countervailing opinion.
  • Seventh edit[4]: Another wildly POV passage, stating as fact that there was no targeting of black, Suddroid, Africoid Indians by the Aryans, when this is far from a settled matter. This reads like something from Stormfront. Further, I deleted the info on the origin of "Dravidian," because it appeared completely misplaced.
  • Final one in the original round of edits by me[5]. I added properly sourced information directly relevant to the subject at hand. What's-his-face-2duracell deleted it wholesale.

My intent has been to correct blatant misstatements of fact, excise spurious, unsubstantiated propaganda/myth presented as incontrovertible truth, and add balance to a decidedly highly skewed article. The nature of my contributions has been determined by the appalling, slant and unencyclopedic nature of the article as I found it. With duracell's edit-warring, however, the article remains pretty much one-sided and simply erroneous -- pretty much a pile of crap. deeceevoice 06:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

complaining about POV

[edit]

from the highly miscegenated Hindus in the north, to the Tamils, Dalits and tribal African groups in the south .....Tamils are mostly Hindus.. ??(northern Hindus and Tamils)?? A Dalit is not a Tamil, neither are Tamils as hole population Dalits. Most Dalits live in Northern Inda. There are no tribal Africans in the South. Those are Australoid.


stating as fact that there was no targeting of black, Suddroid, Africoid Indians by the Aryans Black is a colour, everyone in India North or South West or East can have "black" skincolour. ??Suddroid?? I dont know what u exactly mean with this term, but I asume u mean Shudra's. So "Shudra's" live all across the country. Africoid Indians speaks for itself, where u get this term from? Do you think there are Native-Americanoid "East"-Indians aswell? The so called "Aryans" have brown skincolour, like the vast majority of Indians. Are you writing about what the "White-Aryans" did to the Black Africans? Asian2Duracell

East Asians and South Indians

[edit]

South India is one of the oldest geophysical regions mainly occupied by Dravidian language-speaking people. Here a random panel of 61 unrelated Nadar healthy individual from Tamil Nadu State were analyzed and compared with other populations of India and the world. HLA-A, B and C alleles frequencies and their haplotype frequencies were determined by high-resolution typing of genomic DNA. The analysis revealed that the Nadar caste of South India have several characters shared with East Asian populations consistent with the demographic history of South India, as well as specific features including several unique alleles such as A*03011, A*31011, B*15011, B*3501, B*51011, Cw*02022. In addition, haplotypes such as A*31011-Cw*02022-B*3501, A*03011-Cw*04011-B*4406 and A*2402101-Cw*04011-B*51011 are of high frequency in both these populations but are rare or absent in other populations of India and the world. The study suggests that a comparatively lesser degree of genetic admixture occurred between the South Indian and North Indian racial groups than that between South Indian and East Asian groups.

I found that on http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15295774. Mabe somone is interested in this topic.

Another site

Comparing allele frequencies in the groups from India to those in other geographic regions, allele frequency correlation coefficients are highest for the populations previously studied in Central/South Asia, followed by those of Europe and the Middle East and of East Asia (Table 2). This similarity with Europe and East Asia has been seen in smaller-scale autosomal studies that have incorporated India [24–26]; however, these studies, along with one study of more markers but a smaller number of populations [27], have disagreed somewhat about whether the similarity of India is greater with East Asian populations [24], greater with European populations [26], or about equal between these alternatives [25,27]. We found that allele frequencies in India showed detectably greater similarity to populations in Europe and the Middle East than to those in East Asia (Figure 4). This result is consistent with the fact that the cluster corresponding to India in Figure 2A subdivides a previously obtained cluster corresponding to Europe, the Middle East, and Central/South Asia [19].

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020215 Asian2duracell 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents....

[edit]
I agree with deecevoice, pure Dravidians have been shown craniofacially to be Australoid (I don't use Negroid because they aren't of recent african ancestry, but look african due to staying in a tropical and environment after leaving Africa, see Spencer Wells. The indus valley civilization was dravidian that gradually absorbed indo-aryan immigrants, end of story. Any source that tells you that dravidians and northern indians are of the same race is PC bullshit. Accept the facts folks. Peace. Teth22 10:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept the fact, Indus Valley was Indian. Aryans and Dravdians ar just those people who speak a language which belongs to one of them. Racially they are the same. but look african due to staying in a tropical, Indians look Indian not African. Why is it so hard to understand for u that the same race can develop two different languages. Any source that tells you that dravidians and northern indians are of the same race is PC bullshit. most of the sites which claim that, have reasons to claim that. They refer to researchers. No site which claims Africans and South Indians to be the same has that. Asian2duracell 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless to say that all Indians are "racially the same". There is great diversity in India due to its complex history and many lineages. I'm not too happy about using the terminology of a "Dravidian race", since Dravidian is a language, which may or may not have resulted from Northern migration. However there is good evidence of paleoloithic lineages distinctive to the south that are far less common in the north. It is almost equally meaningless to say that the "Indus Vallley was Indian". The word Indian comes from the Indus, yes, but so what? The word English comes from Angles, who lived in Jutland. The word France comes from the Franks, who were Germans. The Indus an important formative location for Vedic culture which has snce been central to Hindu identity, but that does not mean it belongs to India or that everyone south of Afghanistan is of the "same race". Paul B 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "race" defines people who are related, and distinguishes people who are less related. And surely, "less related" is not something that is unambiguously defined. In the final analysis, we are all related. Dravidians have common ancestors with Africans. There is no doubt. However, the question that is relevent to the article is not whether Dravidians are related to Africans in this absolute sense, but whether they are more related to Africans than they are to, say, Indo-Aryans. Or for that matter, East Asians. The contributions of DCVoice seem to suggest that Dravidians are more related to Africans than they are to Indo-Aryans. However, the evidence provided doesn't seem to assert that (unless E. Asians are magically identified with Africans). --BostonMA talk 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, DCV's contrast between "Dravidian" and "Northern Indian" doesn't reflect the fact that Dravidians are found in North India as well. --BostonMA talk 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to talk about distinctive south Indian lineages than "pure Dravidians" or "miscegenated" northerners. Paul B 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My last point was that there are distinctive North Indian lineages (such as among Gonds) that are just as Dravidian as Dravidian South Indian lineages. --01:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Gonds are often speakers of Dravidian languages, yes, as are the Brahui, but that does not mean that there are genetic lineages that include Gonds in the paleolithic migration event identified by Wells. They may or may not contain such lineages.Paul B 01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say that the term Dravidian is not a single ethnicity, or "race", but a family of related ethnicities. Likewise, the term Dravidian also comprises of a family of related languages. Therefore, the term Dravidian itself would be considered a family of particular related ethnicities and languages. Similarly we have Indo-Aryan which is considered another family of related ethnicities and languages. As to whether the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan families are related to each other, I would have to disagree. However, there has been adoption of certain words from each family within some of the langauges of both families.Wiki Raja 02:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This reveals the danger of blurring discussion of language and ethnicity. Dravisian and I-A languages are not related (in terms of origin), but the people in practice are. Paul B 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it was false to say everyone in India is of the same race. Those people in NorthEast India may have some other admixture than those people in North or South India. But most People in India are mixed. Indus Valley is Indian, as England or France are European. See "Indian" as the Subcontinent not the country.Asian2duracell 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geneticaly Dravidians are more related to other Indians and Asians than any africans.That is a fact.We all know that all humans originated from Africa.As you know Raceism is socially distinct but scientificaly incorrect.It is absolute nonsese to talk about RACE here.Migrating Humans always inter mixed with other humans.This is a fact.People who did'nt move their bum are the original pure Race. Finaly Dravidians are a group of people who have similar culture,language customs etc.So it is very stupid trying to relate them to some humans who were related to them millions of years ago. I just visted the wikipedians sites for English people,French people and found that there is no mention of what RACE they belong.Then why should it be here when the dravidians and the whole of India is of a very mixed people.Lets stop this nonses of RACE.This is not the place for Afrocentic Fantasy.--Vandh 11:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars claim that dravidians are the people from Elamite migration.Elamites are from central asia that is the Iran.Aryans also believed to come from central asia(Iran).So to trace a relation this can also be noted.Are you more closely related to your first cousin or are you more closly related to your great great great grandma's some offspring?.Anyway all humans are related.but how closly is the matter!.Recent scientific findings show that humans migarted out of africa to central asia and then spilt from there to form seperate races.so to find the closest relative we should find who was closer to us in Central asia.--Vandh 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have just visited the Indo-Aryans page and have seen not a single word of race mentioned in the main article neither. However, I have found the word race mentioned 17 times throughout the page on Dravidian people. Also, this accusations of some people including myself being Afrocentric is going overboard. Anthropologically speaking there are a lot of similarities between the Dravidians and the Australian aboriginals whether one wants to accept it or not. Furthermore, there are also similarities between the East Africans and the Dravidians. I do not know why there are people who are going the extra mile to scientifically deny this. Is it a shame or does it make Dravidians inferior for having connections with the Indigenous Australians and East Africa. It is pathetic that there would be people going on a witch-hunt accusing others of Afrocentrism just for merely mentioning anything about Africa or Australia. But, would not mind inventing imaginative fantasies of being related to the people of East Asia or the Middle East.

Adding up the fact that race tends to be the word of choice in this forum, and that there are those who put up a red flag when anything that has to do with even an ounce of Australian or African, I sense some type of resentment towards people of African or Australian Aboriginal descent. That is the impression I am getting. The Dravidian people page is begingin to look like a Nazi lab book on race, DNA, and genetics. All to discredit the Dravidian groups and to turn it into a propoganda page.


What I see on the Dravidian people page is:

  • racial classifications
  • genetic classifications
  • current views
  • mythological views
  • political ramifications


What I see on the Indo-Aryans page is:

  • pre Vedic Aryans
  • Vedic Aryans
  • antiquity
  • Middle Kingdoms
  • Contemporary Aryans


Now tell me what is wrong with the picture above in comparison of the two? One is nothing more than a proof page whether Dravidians exist or not, and other is legitimate information on the Indo-Aryan civilizations (origins, antiuquity, kingdoms, etc.) Once again, this page needs a lot of serious work to be

If race is the issue, then let me please suggest the first thing we do, and that is to remove the word race from the Dravidian people page and relpace it with ethnicity. When we are talking about race, we are basically talking about ethnicity. As far as I am concerned, there is only one race which is the human race. Wiki Raja 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by Aryan people page you mean the Indo-Aryans page. You are not "Afrocentrist" but Deeceevoice can reasonably be described as such. Paul B 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by Aryan people, I meant Indo-Aryans. Sorry for the typo. By the way, is there any chance we can work together collectively to bring the Dravidian people page to the academic standards of Wikipedia, or at least to the standard of the Indo-Aryans page (pre-history, anthropology, antiquity, kingdoms, religions, contemporary Dravidians)?
Regards.
Wiki Raja 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All's quiet?

[edit]

Hello all,

I thought I would break the silence here. Anupam, thanks for adding the Perso-Arabic script for the Northern Dravidian language of Brahui. Also, I have noticed that since user ARYAN818 has been blocked due to bad conduct and user name, we haven't heard from Asian2duracell or Vandh lately. If you guys are still out there please post saying you are still here. Anyways, this page needs continuous cleaning up. To those legitimately contributing, thank you. Wiki Raja 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wiki Raja. I'm glad I could help. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


since user ARYAN818 has been blocked due to bad conduct and user name, we haven't heard from Asian2duracell or Vandh lately.... so what? u think we're all the same? I'm here. And why should someone break the silence? Do you have something to say? If yes, write it on the talk page. U dont have to wait 'til we write back. Idhu varaikku Asian2duracell 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, in reply to your question yes, both your username Asian2duracell and ARYAN818 seemed to appear to be the same due to the identical style and expression of writing (ie. usage of Captial all letters in sentences, multiple periods, multiple question marks, and the usage of “U” instead of “You”). Also, in defence of similar topics. I wouldn’t doubt it that both usernames are from the same person called sockpuppets or a single username used by more than one user called a meatpuppet. Another notion that made me believe that both users are the same was after user ARYAN818 had been blocked due to his unruly behavior and username, and not hearing from you or user Vandh.
User Vandh, ARYAN818, and Asian2duracell have posted similar messages on close/same dates on the same topics:




Sockpuppetry also involves not signing your post numerous times as what has been done in your messages below. In one, you actually admit to it:


Posted at 01:22, 6 January 2007 from Asian2duracell to me:


Posted at 20:58, 9 January 2007 from Asian2duracell to another user:


Posted at 21:08, 9 January 2007 from Asian2duracell to me:


Posted at 21:54, 14 January 2007 from Asian2duracell to me:


Posted at 22:06, 22 January 2007 from Asian2duracell to me.


Posted at 00:53, 22 January 2007 from Asian2duracell posted to me on another user's talk page.



Here are some posts in which each of the users have used multiple periods and mutliple question marks:
Posted by ARYAN818 on talk:Dravidian people at 22:51, 15 December 2006
Posted by Asian2duracell on talk:Dravidian people at 01:22, 6 January 2007:
Posted by Vandh on talk:Tamil people at 01:47, 9 January 2007


Furthermore, like user ARYAN818, your username Asian2duracell has been engaged in what Wikipedia terms trolling. Therefore, your recent postings are deemed as trolling, or being a troll.
Definition:
Troll - In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.



That is my evidence in which anyone would think that users Asian2duracell, Vandh, and ARYAN818 could possibly be the same person. Since Asian2duracell has been blocked and you have just posted, there is a possiblity that both usernames may not be the same person. Now, it would be good if I can also hear from Vandh too, so I can believe you. Also, one cannot hide personal attacks in another language, so please do not try that again on my page, this page, or on another user's page. That would be considered vandalism. Wiki Raja 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiRaja I am vandh here.Did'nt see the dravidians page recently as I was busy.Anyway You are also attacking Asian2duracel in one way or the other just because he/she differs from you.In a talk page there will be disputes and it should resoved amicably.Infact I gave serious reading all these days about the Dravidians africans relations.The recent scietific findings says of course they are related ONLY by the single origin theory ONLY.60,000 to 80,000 yrs ago as any other human Dravians must have also originated in Africa. I can understand that you are adamant not to know about science and so keen to hold on to your OLD text books.Anyway I am leased worried if we are related to Africans/australian aborgines or anyone.But the TRUTH should be told.Just a simple question for you whenever a person from Paksithan.India,srilanka,bangaldesh meet in a Foreign country they have an immediate affinity/oneness among themseleves.Do they do like that to any Africans?.They know who they are related without studying any OLD text books. --Vandh 08:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I was shocked when I first read the Afrocentric quotes in the Tamil page.I am a tamil and I know about my history,language,culture very well.So it was a reall shock.I showed that to some of my Tamil friends and they too were shocked.Thats why I started posting.I think I have had enough in the wikipedia.My only resolution is I will recommend every one I know not to look in to wikipedfia as an Encyclopedia as it is obvious there is some Political/personal Interest in the articles.We dont even remmeber our 2nd cousin or our grandma's sisters family.But WikiRaja is trying to relate us 80,000 yrs ago.Why are you stopping here go further into monkeys and even further to micro oranisims which lived under see several thousands yrs ago.Best of luck to You--Vandh 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To clear the thing Me is a He. Well Vandh, I have to say we think very much the same. I'm a little bit shocked. Now I understand why WikiRaja thought we were the same. I started writing at the time all this afrocentric thing came into the article. So did other users.

Just a simple question for you, whenever a person from Paksithan, India, SriLanka, Bangaldesh meet in a Foreign country they have an immediate affinity/oneness among themseleves. Do they do like that to any Africans? They know who they are related without studying any OLD text books. .... well I couldnt have said it better. .... I would say thats because we all have a distingiush look.

One thing to u WikiRaja. I noticed, on your Page, ur of Tamil ethnicity. Then why shouldnt we talk In Tamil? We are both of the same ethnicity, or arent we? Why use a foreign language if we are from the same country? Or arent u able to speak Tamil at all? ... I start thinking ur not tamil at all. Because of ur reaction to my comment. Asian2duracell 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dravidian_peoples/Archive_2&oldid=1143740347"