The only thing that is telling is in your insistence to try & push discredited arguments.
Ah, the AIT canard again! See below.
Irrelevant argument since you seem to argue that having some elements who are darker means that the average (of what) is on the whole darker. For that you have to assume a racial characteristic but since Dravidians are not a race & no one clams that anymore, you are the one using a strawman argument.
I don't have to assume a racial characteristic, since it is established by the recent genetics study to which I linked, and which showed a concentration of Australoids in the south. Australoids, generally speaking, have darker skin than, say, Caucasoids though individual variations will occur.
Of course, you will refuse to accept the genetic study also, since it is inconvenient.
Claims mean nothing. The people of those areas obviously didn't agree.
Another backtrack: You doubted and asked for evidence of Dravidian nationalist movements beyond Tamils and I provided so.
Influence does not mean conquest.
Not by itself, but when historical legends indicate military conquest, it tilts the interpretation that way.
While I support the argument that the supposed references to "dark skinned" is a misinterpretation, even if otherwise, you arguments goes back to the AIT because these battles happened in North India & had nothing to do with the South.
You deliberately keep avoiding the legend of Agastya, for example, which talks about conquest south of certain mountain range (Vindhya?).
You can't run away from the AIT in general but use an argument originally made to support it & juxtapose it into a South Indian context.
It is only your claim that the dark-skinned interpretation only makes sense in the AIT context. The Vedas talk about southern conquests regardless.
I'm saying no such thing. You are referring to Dravidian culture. No such culture exists. The word does not refer to a race or a group, merely to a language family, each of whom have distinct cultures and sub cultures. Tamil culture is only one part & your usage of a term that only has political meaning(other than the description of a language group) is without meaning.
I am using the phrase Dravidian culture in the same context as European culture or African culture. It is a shorthand aggregate for the various cultures to distinguish them, in this case, from Vedic culture.
As I noted, many of these cultures had their own mutual concerns, as in Tamil hegemony, etc.
Can't be selective about criteria used for accepting "established" views.
How am I being selective? I am accepting the mainstream view on Tamil culture.
What then are the references you keep making to dark skinned enemies? You made a claim based on some criteria of an average you suggest and I pointed out the hopelessly inaccurate nature of that claim.
I pointed out the specific verses in the Rig Veda which talk of fighting dark-skinned enemies. All it means, as I explained above, is that the general skin tone of the enemy was darker than the Vedic writer's. You are the one who immediately exaggerated the claim to require all enemy individuals to be dark skinned.
What Southern legend alludes to military conquest?
The Tamil legend of Agastya is variously interpreted, and some interpretations match with the Vedic claims of conquest.
Illogical or not, Indian religious teachings were largely spread through debates & not through conquest. Since you are suggesting otherwise, you are required to rustle up the proof to back your claims.
On the contrary, you are claiming something our of the ordinary. We know about the Vedic conquests in the north. We know about Vedic claims of Agastya's conquest to the south. We know about later military conquests in the region. So, this claim is consistent with historical patterns. Why make an exception for this particular case unless there is compelling evidence to do so?
For all we know, maybe South Indian kings moved northward & were responsible for that amalgamation.No way to disprove that either.
Lots of things
could have happened. What we
do have is various claims of southward conquest, but no mention of any northward conquest. If the reverse conquests happened, why no record?
Influence typically flows with the conqueror, not the conquered, and we have a definite southward influence. The northward influences came much later, after the south had been brought into the Vedic fold.
Ha, ha, you were not even referring to me when you said that, so if my arguments got you that way, you owe the poster you replied to an apology.
Many of you are singing from the same songbook of deliberately conflating this with the AIT. I lose track of which particular poster is propping that particular canard at any given time.
There are no one apart from some Tamil nationalists of fairly recent vintage who have argued about a Dravidian culture. It simply does not exist under that nomenclature. Your link, as I explained, proves nothing.
Again, if you denying the existence of Tamil culture pre Vedas, then I'll leave it at that. It is generally accepted, whether you believe it or not.
Bogus argument. Simply not supported by facts.
I already explained why no one in their right mind would adopt the caste system unless they were forced to.
Finally the religious angle. Do not care for your religious driven humbug but facts must be pointed out.
This whole thread is about religion, and the trigger for the debate was a Hindutva claim about the superiority of Hinduism. Don't get upset when the mirror shows something you don't like.
Buddhism was never a religion of the rural, it was largely urban which makes your claim false.
Buddhism was the predominant religion of the subcontinent at one point.
Islam?
If it makes you happy......
Islam does not have the caste system and offers equality, regardless of what you guys may believe.
What is the basis for your reasonableness? A Dravidian claim?
Prove imposition, your wish for such a occurrence is not proof.
"Dravidian" nationalists, like other nationalists, say many things. Hardly constitutes proof.
Already addressed, but you will continue to cover your eyes/ears and say "I don't believe that interpretation", so no point.
Reading issues?
Can't see
sect from
caste?
Anyway, would you rather get killed for sectarian reasons, for being born a Shia?
You have dug a very deep hole for yourself.
And lost.
As always.
The hole is only in your mind.
Islam does not divide people into castes or sects.
Whatever divisions exist are the fabrication of individual Muslims, not mandated by religion.
This is in direct contrast to the caste system which is mandated by Hinduism.
