I can assure that no colour fits all south Indians.
When did I make claims about
all south Indians? The fact that you are setting up yet another strawmen here is telling...
err... you are aware of more recent genetic studies, aren't you? The fact that some groups may be concentrated somewhere does not mean that all in that location belong to that group.
There's that strawman again. The fact is that, racially speaking, different races have a preponderance in different geographical parts of India. The
average south Indian skin tone is darker than in the north, regardless of how much you deny it. That is not a racist statement; it is a statement of racial distribution and is backed by a genetics study (I provided the link earlier).
The fact that the other Dravidian language speakers have no corresponding myths makes it suspicious.There is no way to get to Tamil Nadu from North India without going through those regions.
That would provide additional evidence, but their absence says nothing either way.
Evidence please. Enough hot air.
Dravida Nadu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Initially, the demand of Dravida Nadu proponents was limited to Tamil-speaking region, but later, it was expanded to include other Indian states with Dravidian speakers in majority (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala].[1]) Some of the proponents also included parts of Ceylon (Sri Lanka),[2] Orissa, Karnataka and Maharashtra.[3] Other names for the proposed sovereign state included "South India", "Deccan Federation" and "Dakshinapath".
Important, since Tamilians are only a part of South India and their location makes them the last to feel any Northern presence if any such conquest happened. If others have no such legend entwined in their history, one must have to explain that anomoly.
It simply means that their ancient legends need to be revived and studied. Lack of other data points does not invalidate the Tamil data. The Vedic influence happened; that much is fact.
Some do, others are dated arguments. Your view depends on the fact that the argument they advance suits your position. Your dismissal of a contrary opinion as having an agenda opens you to the same charge.
Plenty of established scholars including archeologists of every type have debunked the theories that you quote.
Again you bring in the AIT. Once again, the indigenous nature, or not, of the Vedic Aryans is irrelevant to the debate.
Happy to argue with you specific lines if you choose to quote. You are not the only one with the ability to read.
I already gave you examples from Rig Veda about dark skinned enemies, but you reject scholars' interpretations since they are politically inexpedient.
Disputing, not disputing....no point. Quote the evidence, not just statements being passed off as evidence.
You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you wanted evidence of Vedic conquests in southern cultures, and now you are denying that these regions even had a culture prior to Vedic ingress.
In any case, I am accepting Tamil claims of the antiquity of their culture at face value since they are generally accepted at large, and I have no reason to doubt the established view.
Already explained that you need to read more.
Not at all. I reject your strawman that, unless
all south Indians have dark skin, the Vedic claim is invalid.
No one has ever made any claim about all south Indians.
Rg veda may indicate a militaristic nature but it does not speak of South Indians.
Already mentioned Agastya, his conquests southward, and the confluence with Tamil legends. Of course, you don't accept it but, like I wrote, that doesn't stop scholars from comparing and reaching conclusions.
To assume that people of different times behaving the same would be like assuming that a Muslim today would show necessarily the same militaristic nature that earlier members of his religion did.
The rules of military conquest haven't changed and such conquests were the norm in the past, including the subcontinent. The Vedas, southern legends all attest to military conquest. The later indigenous empires grew through conquest. To assume that somehow things were different in this particular case is illogical, especially when we have legends like Agastya's to say otherwise.
Didn't make references to Islam, not interested. Was referring to their belief in other clearly more disputed theories of Aryan Invasion.
Again, the AIT is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't make it any more relevant to the debate.
Thee is a connection because you are drawing it. There is no proof of any invasion, yet you seek to propagate a theory suggesting that it is so. While that is your right, there is no reason for anyone else to buy that line unreservedly.You want to draw from what are supposed to be the "militaristic" nature of the "Aryans" in the Rg veda and yet not be open to counter arguments about the AIT that you draw from. I will offer my own arguments & rebuttals, not ones that you may wish for.
There is nothing "supposed" about the Vedic gods' militaristic nature: the Vedas are quite explicit about their military prowess.
You keep setting up the AIT strawmen as some sort of rebuttal, but it falls flat. The Mauryas invaded and conquered much of the subcontinent; will you then claim that they were outsiders? How about the Guptas, and other indigenous conquests? Why do you need to posit that the southward invaders in this particular case, Vedic elite, could only have been outsiders? Why couldn't local tribes enter an expansionist phase driven by the usual factors?
Defeat? Don't flatter yourself.
When you keep propping up strawman after strawmen, deliberately exaggerating statements to the extreme (all south Asians have dark skin, unified Dravidian culture, etc.), what else is there?
Prove the existence of a unified Dravidian culture being distinct from an Aryan culture & we will take it from there.
Who says it had to be unified? Yet another misrepresentation by you.
What matters is that there are Dravidians who believe they had their own individual culture before Vedics came along. I gave the link above about Dravidian nationalism. In fact, one of the things that broke up the movement was feat of Tamil hegemony.
Declaring victory & running off seems to be more to your liking.
No one's running off, but there's only so long that I can keep refuting irrelevant strawmen arguments about the AIT, lack of Tamil culture, etc. and all these deliberate exaggerations.
As I have said before, Amalgamation is not invasion. One of the most important Gods of Northern India-Shiva being the same that so many "scholars" insist is Dravidian hardly indicates an imposition of vedic Gods, does it?
Lots of things get clouded by centuries of dust.
What is not clouded is the staunch Dravidian claim that Sanskrit, caste system and other Vedic cultural constructs were imposed on them. That is logical, since no one willingly accepts a degrading low caste for themselves and their progeny. Large numbers of Hindus opted out as soon as they had the chance, first with Buddhism, then with Islam and Christianity.
So it is reasonable to accept the Dravidian claim that these Vedic concepts were imposed onto them. Now, considering that the caste system was an integral part of the Vedic religious doctrine, then it follows that the religious aspects were also imposed.
What is the discussion about? Someone please summarise for me. Too lazy to read all the bickering.
A Hindu nationalist claimed that, unlike Abrahamic religions, Vedic Hinduism did not expand through conquest when, in fact, the ancient texts (Vedic and Tamil) as well as Dravidian nationalists say quite the opposite.
