What's new

Lankan Tamils to break coconuts for Hillary

They could have come by boat if they wanted. No needing of leap frogging.

They did. That is the Vijaya myth. Precisely that.

Give me one evidence, just one.

Will I get paid for this? When I teach, I charge 2,000 an hour.

In the references below, I have deliberately omitted Indian authors, or authors who sound as if they might be Indian; I have also not cited text-books that might not be accessible to you, but simple, on-line references, so you can see for yourself.

#Settlements of culturally similar early populations of ancient Sri Lanka and ancientTamil Nadu in India were excavated at megalithic burial sites at Pomparippu on the west coast and in Kathiraveli on the east coast of the island. Bearing a remarkable resemblance to burials in the Early Pandyan Kingdom, these sites were established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE.

#Excavated ceramicsequences similar to that of Arikamedu were found in Kandarodai (Kadiramalai) on the north coast, dated to 1300 BCE. Cultural similarities in burial practices in South India and Sri Lanka were dated by archaeologists to 10th century BCE. However, Indian history and archaeology have pushed the date back to 15th century BCE. In Sri Lanka, there is radiometric evidence from Anuradhapura that the non-Brahmi symbol-bearing black and red ware occur in the 10th century BCE. The skeletal remains of an Early Iron Age chief were excavated in Anaikoddai, Jaffna District. The name Ko Veta is engraved in Brahmi script on a seal buried with the skeleton and is assigned by the excavators to the 3rd century BCE. Ko, meaning "King" in Tamil, is comparable to such names as Ko Atan, Ko Putivira and Ko Ra-pumaan occurring in contemporary Tamil Brahmi inscriptions of ancient South India and Egypt.

#Potsherds with early Tamil writing from the 2nd century BCE have been found from the north in Poonagari, Kilinochchi District to the south in Tissamaharama. They bore several inscriptions, including a clan name—vela, a name related to velir from ancient Tamil country. Epigraphic evidence shows people identifying themselves as Damelas or Damedas (the Prakritword for Tamil people) in Anuradhapura, the capital city of Rajarata the middle kingdom, and other areas of Sri Lanka as early as the 2nd century BCE. Excavations in the area of Tissamaharama in southern Sri Lanka have unearthed locally issued coins, produced between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE, some of which carry local Tamil personal names written in early Tamil characters, which suggest that local Tamil merchants were present and actively involved in trade along the southern coast of Sri Lanka by the late classical period. Other ancient inscriptions from the period reference a Tamil merchant, the Tamil householder residing in Ilubharata[c] and a Tamil sailor named Karava.[d] Two of the five ancient inscriptions referring to the Damedas (Tamils) are in Periya Pullyakulam in the Vavuniya District, one is in Seruvavila in Trincomalee District, one is in Kuduvil in Ampara District and one is in Anuradhapura. Mention is made in literary sources of Tamil rulers bringing horses to the island in water craft in the second century BCE, most likely arriving at Kudiramalai. Historical records establish that Tamil kingdoms in modern India were closely involved in the island's affairs from about the 2nd century BCE. Kudiramalai, Kandarodai and Vallipuram served as great northern Tamil capitals and emporiums of trade with these kingdoms and the Romans from the 6th–2nd centuries BCE. The archaeological discoveries in these towns and the Manimekhalai, a historical poem, detail how Nāka-Tivu of Nāka-Nadu on the Jaffna Peninsula was a lucrative international market for pearl and conch trading for the Tamil fishermen.

#In Mahavamsa, a historical poem, ethnic Tamil adventurers such as Elara invaded the island around 145 BCE. Early Chola king Karikalan, son of Eelamcetcenni utilised superior Chola naval power to conquer Ceylon in the first century CE. Hindu Saivism, Tamil Buddhism, Jainism and secularism were popular amongst the Tamils at this time, as was the proliferation of village deity worship. The Amaravati school was influential in the region when the Telugu Satavahana dynasty established the Andhra empire and its 17th monarch Hāla (20–24 CE) married a princess from the island. Ancient Vanniars settled in the east of the island in the first few centuries of the common era to cultivate and maintain the area. The Vanni region flourished. In the 6th century CE, a special coastal route by boat was established from the Jaffna peninsula southwards to Saivite religious centres in Trincomalee (Koneswaram) and further south to Batticaloa (Thirukkovil), passed a few small Tamil trading settlements in Mullaitivu on the north coast. The conquests and rule of the island by Pallava kingNarasimhavarman I (630–668 CE) and his grandfather King Simhavishnu (537–590 CE) saw the erection and structural development of several Kovils around the island, particularly in the north-east – these Pallava Dravidian rock temples remained a popular and highly influential style of architecture in the region over the next few centuries. Tamil soldiers from what is now South India were brought to Anuradhapura between the 7th and 11th centuries CE in such large numbers that local chiefs and kings trying to establish legitimacy came to rely on them. By the 8th century CE Tamil villages were collectively known as Demel-kaballa (Tamil allotment), Demelat-valademin (Tamil villages), and Demel-gam-bim (Tamil villages and lands).

Since you talked with such expansive grandeur about the Dutch and the Portuguese, here's something for you:

160px-Jaffna_Royal_family_280x190.jpg
The Jaffna royal family, first from the right is Cankili I, who held off thePortuguese Empire.




Ok they weren't have being Bengalis. But we call them "X" group. They sure wasn't Sinhalese.

Contortions belong to a circus, not to academic discussions.

If they were Sinhalese. What happened to the rest of the group called Sinhalese who lived in those original Indian lands?

Here I am. There was no group called Sinhalese. They began to call themselves that long after settling down on the island. Their original name might have had Singh in it, as it is typical of Kshatriyas and later, in mediaeval times, of Rajputs; so Vijayasimha's name gave birth to Sinhala. They were not known as Sinhala anywhere else. Those they descended from became Biharis, and Maithils, and Bengalis, and Odiyas, and Tripuris, and Assamese (pre-Ahom ones).


I already did, genius. 40,000 BC comes before 34,000.

Why swimming. Aryan Language would have obviously come from a boat from India along with Buddhism.

But that's what I've been saying; that Tamil was local, Sinhala was exotic. Here, read for yourself.

The oldest Sinhalese Prakrit inscriptions found are from the third to second century BCE following the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, the oldest existing literary works date from the ninth century. The closest relative of Sinhalese is the language of theMaldives and Minicoy Island (India), the Maldivian language.

Pali had nothing to do with it, as I've been trying to explain to you. VERY patiently.

You obviously don't know the history of Jaffna.
http://www.island.lk/2006/04/01/satmag1.html

Try not to embarrass yourself more than you can help. Don't put up some silly blog against serious history.

Here is some non-serious history to get your digestive juices started.

  • The two groups of Tamils located in Sri Lanka are the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils.
  • There also exists a significant population in Sri Lanka who are native speakers of Tamil language and are of Islamic faith. Though several evidence point them towards being ethnic Tamils, they are however controversially listed as a separate ethnic group by the Sri Lankan government.
  • Sri Lankan Tamils (also called Ceylon Tamils) are descendants of the Tamils of the old Jaffna Kingdom and east coast chieftaincies called Vannimais.
  • The Indian Tamils (or Hill Country Tamils) are descendants of bonded labourers sent from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka in the 19th century to work on tea plantations.
 
Last edited:
.
This is not about opinion; this is about knowledge. I brush you aside (what you have quoted was addressed to someone else, not to you in the first place) because of ignorance and arrogance in not recognising your ignorance, not because our opinions differ.
Just a simple dirty cheapshot.

By sticking to your bigotry,
You are just as ignorant as me and by refusing to acknowledge your own ignorance- you are just as arrogant.
And, if you want to discuss something with you, stop making animal noises.

There you go. As usual, it gives me the thrill and tickle whenever i see some1 having to resort to ad_hominem attacks just to desperately enforce their own opinion onto others n forcibly make them adopt one's own version of the whole arguement in regards to the topic at hand being debated.

Would you be offended if I called you a nincompoop and an ill-read idiot, and if I said that your Singapore text-books are singularly stupid?

There are two types of Tamils on Sri Lanka, the Jaffna Tamils of thousands of years ago, and the plantation Tamils, who were imported by the British only in the past two hundred years.

It is sad that you have the gall and presumption to challenge students of south Asian history based on your reading of a badly-written school textbook.
= arguement by authority.

Regardless of your claims to what you are- it does'nt invalidate my opinion or make yours supercedes anyone's.

I prefer to trust my national school textbooks then to believe the long-winded ramblings of a self-professed 'South Asian history student' on the Internet.
 
.
Just a simple dirty cheapshot.

If you say so. That is your opinion.How can one change an opinion? That is not a fact. Other facts can support or cast doubt on a fact.

By sticking to your bigotry,
You are just as ignorant as me and by refusing to acknowledge your own ignorance- you are just as arrogant.

No, no, no....a thousand times no. Arrogant, possibly, ignorant, no.

There you go. As usual, it gives me the thrill and tickle whenever i see some1 having to resort to ad_hominem attacks just to desperately enforce their own opinion onto others n forcibly make them adopt one's own version of the whole arguement in regards to the topic at hand being debated.

Thrill and tickle. Quite. I see the grave and serene touch in this observation. Anything else?

= arguement by authority.

Regardless of your claims to what you are- it does'nt invalidate my opinion or make yours supercedes anyone's.

I prefer to trust my national school textbooks then to believe the long-winded ramblings of a self-professed 'South Asian history student' on the Internet.

On the contrary, I am a self-professed south Asian history student. You added the Internet.

If you say silly things which show that you do not know the difference between Jaffna Tamils and Indian Tamils, and prefer to pass on the responsibility to your school textbooks, that is entirely your problem. Your school textbooks then turn out to be badly written and ignorant. :D
 
.
Tamil is as much Indian as it can get. Dravid which means the land and not people are as much Indian as it can get.

We Indians are proud of our Tamil speaking brothers. Tamil is Aryan and if someone wants to counter me then he MOST welcome.
Tamil is nor Aryan, its a Dravidian language and it is still spoken in Cameroon.

Murugan the Dravidian(Tamil) god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups is called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains.

Indo-Aryans attack the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) because it makes them recent immigrants to India and to drive out Dravidians from India history. The attacks on AIT by Hindu Nationalists is made to give Indo-Aryan people a history they do not deserve.
 
.
Tamil is nor Aryan, its a Dravidian language and it is still spoken in Cameroon.

Murugan the Dravidian(Tamil) god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups is called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains.

Indo-Aryans attack the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) because it makes them recent immigrants to India and to drive out Dravidians from India history. The attacks on AIT by Hindu Nationalists is made to give Indo-Aryan people a history they do not deserve.

Cherry picking coincidences are not scientific and/or anthropological causation.

If you are a major proponent of AIT in view of the streams of incoming evidence and information (on top of established past evidence that clearly shatters the original AIT theory), one cannot help you. There were multiple migrations into the subcontinent well before the Vedic people, how much of an "invasion" each one was is left to realm of speculation for the time being, and thus open to personal bias.
 
.
Cherry picking coincidences are not scientific and/or anthropological causation.

If you are a major proponent of AIT in view of the streams of incoming evidence and information (on top of established past evidence that clearly shatters the original AIT theory), one cannot help you. There were multiple migrations into the subcontinent well before the Vedic people, how much of an "invasion" each one was is left to realm of speculation for the time being, and thus open to personal bias.
Its not cherry picking coincidence, exactly they speak or we speak a dielect of the same language, which exactly gives the same meaning.

Solam - Solam (millet)
ingirkku - ingu irukku (its here)
piddi - pidi (catch it)
Mal kotte - kotte(rumbu) (black ant) - Mal means black in tamil, and thats the same reason god Thiru"mal"s painting is in black.
 
.
Its not cherry picking coincidence, exactly they speak or we speak a dielect of the same language, which exactly gives the same meaning.

Solam - Solam (millet)
ingirkku - ingu irukku (its here)
piddi - pidi (catch it)
Mal kotte - kotte(rumbu) (black ant) - Mal means black in tamil, and thats the same reason god Thiru"mal"s painting is in black.

I have looked at that video and others posted by that same person. Its cherry picking dude. You have to give an entirety of the language and not few specific words to make an anthropological link...not to mention genetic markers etc.

I mean there is a reason he is publishing his "findings" on youtube and not a science journal (where you would have to clearly meet the threshold of evidence). It does not pass muster on scientific basis....but it sure makes good clickbait/conspiracy theory/alternate history rigmarole etc.
 
.
I have looked at that video and others posted by that same person. Its cherry picking dude. You have to give an entirety of the language and not few specific words to make an anthropological link...not to mention genetic markers etc.

I mean there is a reason he is publishing his "findings" on youtube and not a science journal (where you would have to clearly meet the threshold of evidence). It does not pass muster on scientific basis....but it sure makes good clickbait/conspiracy theory/alternate history rigmarole etc.

You can not give entirety to any language, if you do so, then you have to accept all the indian languages are different from Sanskrit. And its not only about the video, african American author cylde winters has written a book about IVC and dravidian connection.

Do you think genetic study debunks aryan invasion theory? Fine, share me a research paper which claims that.
 
Last edited:
.
sorry i atually wanted to reply u and engage in some serious discussion because the Sri Lankan conflict of the majoirty Sinhalas with its minority Tamils was atually a case study topic(along with the Northern Ireland and Ireland conflict) in our Social Studies Secondary school text book.

4_2d4c240e-184b-4c3f-91ea-4e2126c5f19f_1024x1024.jpg


social%2Bstudies%2B3.jpg

20140126_013242.jpg

IMG_0027.JPG

sec3-chapter4-conflict-in-multiethnic-societies-sri-lankaslideshare-7-728.jpg

sec-3-social-studies-chapter-5-2-728.jpg



Studying these 2 conflicts were meant to ingrain young Singaporeans on the importance of maintaining racial and religious harmony as we are a multicultural society ourselves.



But i realised i could'nt be bothered to(reply anymore of your postings, other then this single post now), the moment i came to:

<== source please?

i know u wont be able to provide any anyway, and so- down goes whatever credibility u might have in any remaining part of all your postings in this thread.

72926931.jpg

Thanks for the information.

In order to help your case study.

1. Sri Lanka's conflict has much older origins, actually it goes far back to 1920s.
2. The quest for Eelam started in 1922 by a tamil leader called Arunachalam in 1922. Interestingly it includes Parts of Singapore as well. http://tamilnation.co/selfdetermination/tamileelam/2200arunachalam.htm
3. In 1931 Sri Lanka got universal suffrage that means every one has a vote. Tamil leaders went to London to protest against this decision and asked British not to do that. And asked at least not to give voting rights to women and low castes
4. With voting rights the political power in the country became more balanced with 75 percent sinhala holding more power and 25 percent minority holding 25 percent power. The tamil politicians did not like this. That is why they acted against universal suffrage.
5. In 1945 Tamil leaders asked for 50-50 which means 50 percent seats for 75 percent sinhalese and 50 percent seats for 25 percent minority. The british commissioner himself rejected it calling it ridiculous as it was an attempt at minority rule over majority.
http://www.colomboherald.com/world-politics/tamil-caste-discrimination
6. Sri Lanka saw the first Sinhala tamil riot in 1939. That was as a result of a tamil leader called GG Ponnambalam publicly claiming Sinhalese are a mongrel race and Sri Lanka is a Tamil country. They created a false history of Sri Lanka.
7. In 1947 , tamil politician GG ponnambalam publicly states that he is not a ceylonese and that he was a Dravida person

All these happened BEFORE Sri Lanka got independance...and hence nothing to do with any perceived discrimination.

If they came from North India they would be wheatish colour instead of the black skinned. They are not North Indians. They are probably some aboriginal race like the Sentinelese from the Andaman Islands who adopted an Indian language and religion.

Actually Sri Lanka has been inhabited 100000 years ago. Balangoda man is one such fossilized remains of such a man. The sinhala people come from them and of course immigrants were absorbed.

Sri Lankans are people of all kinds of colors and shape. Even if Swedes were to move to Sri Lanka and stay there for thousands of years, they too would look like Sri Lankans after the lapse of so many years. The human skin adapts to its environment and climatic conditions. It is no coincidence that dark skinned people are all clustered around the equator.

just ignore whatever manlion said- he's just giving opinions of his own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias. His end statement is 'Sri Lanka belongs to the Tamils! period'.

He has no credibility at all.



We are in many ways similar to Sri Lanka as a society in the ethnic sense, which is why the Sri Lanka case study in our textbooks were heavily emphasized on in order to foster greater udnerstand of other ethnic groups around us, as can be seen in this tuition class photo.

home.jpg


the 3 girls and the 2 leftmost guys are Chinese. The 2 righthand most guys are Malays

Sri Lanka cannot be compared with Singapore. Singapore is a modern nation with no historical baggage. Chinese came from china, tamils from india and malays from Malaysia. Sri Lanka is different it is the native homeland of Sri Lankan people.


Sad to see Sri Lankan disowning 12% of their population. They are as much citizen of Sri Lanka as anyone else.
It is the tamils' ego centric misinterpretation of country's history that makes problems.

The Jaffna Tamils are known to have been there for the last 2,000 years, some authorities say more. It is possible that they were in the island earlier than the Sinhala, who have an origin myth of immigrating from Bengal or Kalinga.
LOL do you have any evidence to back your claim? If tamils were before Sinhalese, they would be living in the south of the country. It is the first comers who were pushed into the interior due to invasions.

Look at the Sinhala language. It is an Aryan language, there in Sri Lanka after a few thousand kilometres, a few thousand square miles filled with Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, Tamil, Kodava, Malayalam and some other smaller Dravidian languages. Unless you believe that parachutes were invented in 2500 BC, there is no escaping the evidence that the Sinhala came from parts where Aryan languages had spread. That is India from the Punjab through to Assam, and down to the Narmada river, roughly speaking.

We don't claim that the Sinhala are from Bangladesh, you do. So why don't you ask yourselves that question? Why do we need to prove or disprove YOUR origin myth?

What do you know about Sinhala lanaguge? the evolution of Sinhala langauge can be found all over the island in inscriptions. It is the case with tamils
 
.
And its not only about the video, african American author cylde winters has written a book about IVC and dravidian connection.

Thats fine. I never opposed that connection (the links are ongoing and they are quite strong). Last post I was referring more to the worldwide tamil - africa - maya - whateverplace....that needs much more evidence than what we have so far.

Do you think genetic study debunks aryan invasion theory? Fine, share me a research paper which claims that.

Genetic studies actually give strong evidence that intermixing of various migrations of people took place....before during and after the vedic people migration into subcontinent.

The very nature of genetic studies means its impossible for the rate of migration to be determined with any accuracy. Thus the nature of the migration on the ground (be it peaceful or military invasion or combinations of both and the timespan this happened) cannot be determined by todays genetics alone. Rather we need other archaeological markers for this.

AIT in its initial conception by British historians (who had much reason to have much bias about cultural hierachies especially before WW2 when the most ugly part of that nature took root in Europe itself) basically postulated that the descriptions of the battles in the Vedas marked the entirety of the nature of Vedic expansion into North and Central India. They then extrapolated this backwards (which is a very wrong thing to do in Science) to even the Indus valley civilisation because they did not have access to the dating science we have today....that the Aryans were the reason for the decline and destruction of the IVC. Whereas today we have much evidence through dating that the IVC was already in serious decline and may have collapsed completely well before the Vedic migration occured for what may have been agricultural reasons, but the evidence is still incoming so more time and study is required.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/revealed-the-truth-behind-the-indus-valley-civilizations-collapse/

This is all information that you can look up. Of course you are free to believe whatever you want.
 
.
Actually Sri Lanka has been inhabited 100000 years ago. Balangoda man is one such fossilized remains of such a man. The sinhala people come from them and of course immigrants were absorbed.

That's the point I'm trying to impress. Sinhalese are indigenous people to Lanka closely related to Sentinelese from the Andaman
 
.
Some allowance can be made for rank ignorance, but do try to educate yourself. This is not a forum where only one nationality posts.

The Jaffna Tamils are known to have been there for the last 2,000 years, some authorities say more. It is possible that they were in the island earlier than the Sinhala, who have an origin myth of immigrating from Bengal or Kalinga.

Maybe your advice should have been to the Sinhala: to go back to Kalinga. It would have been just as insensitive, and just as ignorant as the statement that you did make.

Please take the trouble to learn these small things before you comment.



You should have just told him the facts, and let him figure out what a ridiculous statement he had made.



You too need to bone up on your own history. It is the Sinhala who have claims to having immigrated. Not just the Tamils.



A totally uncalled for and sweeping generalisation.

You need to read about the abrupt conversion of a multi-cultural country into a majority-dominated and oppressive caricature, soon after independence. It is shocking that these comments are made without the slightest knowledge or background of the situation.



My humble request is that you cease to think in such global political categories and learn the specifics of the situation first. It is stupid, downright stupid, not to mention odiously condescending, to compare the situation to the situation in Cyprus. Both are difficult and extremely complicated. Your comment about state-sanctioned support and conspiracies might raise eyebrows in several quarters.

@Sinan @T-123456



Thank you for the first sensible post on the subject, although I don't think much of your racist partitioning :D

Being from Bengal, as the Sinhala claim to be, you might say that I have a vested interest, more than other north Indians, in supporting the Sinhala. But that isn't a good enough reason not to state the bare truth.



On the contrary, they were contemporary with the Sinhala.

And watch your language.



Look at the Sinhala language. It is an Aryan language, there in Sri Lanka after a few thousand kilometres, a few thousand square miles filled with Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, Tamil, Kodava, Malayalam and some other smaller Dravidian languages. Unless you believe that parachutes were invented in 2500 BC, there is no escaping the evidence that the Sinhala came from parts where Aryan languages had spread. That is India from the Punjab through to Assam, and down to the Narmada river, roughly speaking.

We don't claim that the Sinhala are from Bangladesh, you do. So why don't you ask yourselves that question? Why do we need to prove or disprove YOUR origin myth?



The land connection is debatable.



The trouble is that your jingoism is clashing with your cultural narrative.

It is no one but the Sinhala who claim that they came from outside, from Bengal or perhaps Kalinga, not the people of Bengal or of Kalinga. As for their getting taught a lesson in the past, until Duttu Gamini, Sri Lanka was under Tamil rule.
They should send all the Tamils to Joe Shearer's house in India.
 
. .
They should send all the Tamils to Joe Shearer's house in India.

LOL.

Now we know this member's capacity.

Incidentally I live in traditionally Dravidian speaking country where there is enough space to accommodate all the Tamils and the Singapore Chinese as well! :D
 
.
Thanks for the information.

In order to help your case study.
1. Sri Lanka's conflict has much older origins, actually it goes far back to 1920s.

i am not disputing this, nor am i in a good position to because like i said, my focus was on largely the resultant consequences of the conflict.

2. The quest for Eelam started in 1922 by a tamil leader called Arunachalam in 1922. Interestingly it includes Parts of Singapore as well. http://tamilnation.co/selfdetermination/tamileelam/2200arunachalam.htm
ok
3. In 1931 Sri Lanka got universal suffrage that means every one has a vote. Tamil leaders went to London to protest against this decision and asked British not to do that. And asked at least not to give voting rights to women and low castes
ok
4. With voting rights the political power in the country became more balanced with 75 percent sinhala holding more power and 25 percent minority holding 25 percent power. The tamil politicians did not like this. That is why they acted against universal suffrage.
But there were several discriminatory policies that were set in place that further upset the Tamils too.(e.g the University entrance policies- as can be seen in the slideshows i've linked)
5. In 1945 Tamil leaders asked for 50-50 which means 50 percent seats for 75 percent sinhalese and 50 percent seats for 25 percent minority. The british commissioner himself rejected it calling it ridiculous as it was an attempt at minority rule over majority. http://www.colomboherald.com/world-politics/tamil-caste-discrimination
ok. you have to link sources for this because were it to be true, then i would find it ridiculous too that a minority would go to such demands.
6. Sri Lanka saw the first Sinhala tamil riot in 1939. That was as a result of a tamil leader called GG Ponnambalam publicly claiming Sinhalese are a mongrel race and Sri Lanka is a Tamil country. They created a false history of Sri Lanka.
ok, link sources for this, if what you are trying to conviince me is that the Tamils were the sole original instigators of the Sinhalees-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka.
7. In 1947 , tamil politician GG ponnambalam publicly states that he is not a ceylonese and that he was a Dravida person
By face value, i am not surprised- are'nt Tamils indeed Dravidians- just the Telugus, Kannadas, Malayalam, Telanganas and Tulus in South india are?

All these happened BEFORE Sri Lanka got independance...and hence nothing to do with any perceived discrimination.
I don't agree there's no discrimination.



Actually Sri Lanka has been inhabited 100000 years ago. Balangoda man is one such fossilized remains of such a man. The sinhala people come from them and of course immigrants were absorbed.
ok





Sri Lanka cannot be compared with Singapore. Singapore is a modern nation with no historical baggage. Chinese came from china, tamils from india and malays from Malaysia. Sri Lanka is different it is the native homeland of Sri Lankan people.

False conclusion.

The fact that it's a fixed case study(along with the Northern Ireland religious conflict) in our educational curriculum and examination papers says exactly the opposite, and I have already explained why is it so.
It is the tamils' ego centric misinterpretation of country's history that makes problems.
Personally, I would somehow agree with this.

I can see that your end statement is 'Tamils are the sole cause of all the problems!' . While i do think they've played a huge causative part in it, the Sinhalese themselves have also fanned the flames further.

PS* I want to ask why is Sinhalese pronounced as 'Sin-GER-lees' and not 'Sing-HA-lees' because my Tamil colleague corrected my pronunciation of it( when i asked for his opinion on Sri Lanka. Unexpectedly, he merely claimed that Sinhalese women prefer Tamil men- and that was all he said):girl_wacko:
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom