Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 30 January 2007

To-do list for Dravidian peoples: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-03-23 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : add some text to: Religion Art and Architecture Music Martial Art Write about the Dravidian history Origins Distribution Pre-Historical evidence Classical period imperial periods

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Dravidian race?!

I just took a look at the article and glanced through the arguments on this talk page and few users' talk pages. There is so much wrong about this article that, frankly, I dont even know where to start.

Even so, I'll try.

For starters, 'Dravidian' is NOT a 'race'. Not by any stretch of imagination. It was term first used by Caldwell, a linguist, to group together certain languagaes like kannada, tulu, malayalam, brahui, tamil etc.,. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And even Caldwell writes in his book that the term was a very bad choice and that he was using the term reluctantly simply coz he couldnt think of anything better.

So if 'Dravidian' is ever used to describe people, it should only be used to refer to 'speakers' of the above mentioned languages even if the speakers were Mongoloid or Caucasian.

That 'Dravidian' has(in some quarters) come to assume racial connotations, is thanks purely to the political machinations of the Dravidian parties. A similar fate had befallen the term 'Aryan' too a little earlier, thanks to a certain Mr. Hitler and his comrades.

Racially, both 'South Indians' and 'North Indians' are the same. Somebody may point to some esoteric genetic study(which used probably a sample size of 5 people to decide the fate of a billion people) and claim that there are, infact, genetic differences between 'north indians' and 'south indians'(both terms being as ambiguous and 'loose' as they get). Nonetheless, these may at best be perfectly natural differences but certainly not enough to bracket them ('south indians' and 'north indians') into different races. It is not like one of them is Mongoloid and the other is Caucasian!! Even if the languages they speak are as different as chalk and cheese(thats debatable too, but let's leave that for another day).

Other than the racial connotations that this article talks of, even other things like claiming that Carnatic music or Bharatanatya or Kuchipudi etc., are 'Dravidian' traditions is patent nonsense.

So unless somebody puts some sense and sanity back into the article, I will be tagging it soon. Infact, I dont even know what an appropriate tag would be. {OR} certainly comes to mind. So does {pov} and its variants. Let me see. I'll try to find a good one. Sarvagnya 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters this is one of the most comprehensive view on the concept called Dravidian people. It gives all sides of the argument for is it a race or not ? is it a language group or not ? but in general the article does not make a prnouncement about truth unlike your argument above. In wikipedia we give all sides and let the readers make up their mind. This article reads only POV only to those who have only one point of view. It is page of constant changes because of it but at the end we have maintained it in a balanced point of viewRaveenS 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Dravidian "race", but Dravidian family of related ethnicities and language

Thanks for your input. Dravidian is not a single race, but a terminology or category of a family of related ethnicties and languages. There seems to be a confusion here on the term Dravidian supposedly created by Caldwell. We cannot change that terminology, if we do, then we might as well change the name of India to something else. Furthermore, the terminology Dravidian is an indigenous name from Sanskrit. There is no where in Sanskrit, Tamils, Bengali, Pali, etc., literature which mentions the word India. So, should we take that name off too? Just because Indo-Aryans and Dravidians so happened to be within the same borders of India, have simlar complexions and black hair does not make them of the same ethnicities. For example, would you same that a Balinese from Indonesia, and someone from Japan are of the same ethnicity because the features of their eyes may be the same?

This debate on the talk page has been going on for too long. It is time that we all come to some sort of compromise to at least bring this page up to NPOV standards. If you have read my statements, then you would have come accross what I wrote in comparison to the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian pages:

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

What is wrong with that picture? The Dravidian page looks like a propoganda POV page trying to disprove the fact that there are Dravidian civilizations. Once again, Dravidian is a terminology for a family of related ethnicities and languages. If people are trying to disprove that Dravidian civilizations do not exist, then they should try requesting this page to be taken off of Misplaced Pages. Plain and simple. Instead of these senseless arguments in which we are going no where.

It is more than obvious that we all have our passions in what ever it may be and that the other will not be influencing another users points of view. What I can offer is that we all work together, and somehow post all our views on the Dravidian people page. Therefore, this page will show all our views, in which we are not the only ones who have these views. Am I correct. Furthermore, with our posts, we should have sources cited. Please let me know what you all think. One more thing, in regards to the Mythical views section, I saw this:

Tamil legends

According to Tamil lore, the ancient Tamils originally came from submerged land Kumari Kandam in the south of India.


Vedic legends

 Vedic legends speak of battles between the Asuras and Devas.

It states that the Sangam literature is nothing more than Tamil lore, while in Vedic section, it does not say that. Also, it is the Kumari Kandam which is the main page which talks about lemuria. My suggestion is to change Tamil lore to Tamil legend. Otherwise, if we keep that, then I suggest that we add in Vedic legends. There seems to be also a biased POV in this Dravidian page towards Vedic literature and Indo-Aryan culture. I am going to start contributing this article with quoted sources, a map of the Dravidian population distribution, and of course there will have to be a couple of changes in order to bring this page up to Misplaced Pages non-POV standards. I do agree with you that this page is in pathetic shape and I suggest that we all work together on this as a team collectively without any bias, favoritism, nationalism, religionism, and other isms and skisms. I hope you unerstand as well as the other readers.

I am willing to work with you and others on this project. People say that I attack those who disagree with me. That is wrong. However, I do report those who attack me with vandalism, personal attacks, foul language, accusations, amongst others which all constitute and result in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and trolling. This endless cycle of unproductive debate Dravidian talk page is becoming repetitive. Therefore, I am notifying everyone in this Dravidian talk page that I will be initiating edition to Dravidian people by adding more information and sources in regards to this topic. Finally, I will let you all know that I am not here to advocate on any politics or religion. I am also not hear to advocate nationalism of any kind. What I am interested in is contributing information in regards to the Dravidian civilizations overall in encyclopediatic format covering all aspects from within India and outside of India and thus bringing this page to Misplaced Pages standings. Thank you. Wiki Raja 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja unlike Indo-Aryans, Dravidian is a not a self identification. It is an identity racial, genetic and linguistic and historical that has been imposed by others. Arya is a term used by a group of Indo-Iranian speaking tribes that lived in Central Asia to describe them and it even entered the Finnish language as a term for slaves as Finnish tribes used to raid the Arya tribes for slaves. Now given that there cannot be any comparison between these two so called classification. One is ancient and self designation and other is a historical and modern designation by outsiders. What the Dravidian peoples article can discus is whether it is a race or not, is there any genetic identity or not and did the language arrive early or late also historic mention of the group prior to what modern linguists, genetist and historians identify them. I think the article tries to do a great job but it can use the help of those who belive that it is race and it proved by genetics such as you to find correct references for such assertion so it is more neutral. Because right now it reads that there was no Dravidian race and it is not proved by genetics. Thanks RaveenS 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiRaja, what exactly do u mean by 'Dravidian civilisations'? Are u merely referring collectively to Kannada, tamil, brahui, telugu, malayalam etc., 'civilisations' or are you trying to suggest that there was a civilisation of people who were genetically(and hence racially??) different from the speakers of Indo Aryan languages.

If the latter is what you're pushing for this article to be, I'd support that this article get deleted.

If it is the former that you have in mind, then it might be in the fitness of things that this article take the shape of a summary article with inputs from other articles that pertain to the Dravidian family of languages and their development, history etc.,. Please clarify. Sarvagnya 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the "Dravidan Claims", I dont see any POV in this page. Dravidians are people who speak any language which belongs to the Dravidian languages. There is no difference between IndoAryans and Dravdians in term of race. Like there is no diffrence between Irakis and Iranians in term of "race". But they both have a different culture and speak two completly different languages. The Dravidian page should exist if its about culture and language. But ur right, if its about racial classification we should delete it.

WikiRaja, U may have noticed that there are more than just one User who disagree with u. That doesnt mean we attack u, we just dont feel it fair to label us as something we arent. Especially from those who dont even know what Dravidian means. Sarvagnya ur male or female? ****Asian2duracell 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)****

I agree we should remove that Dravidian claim section RaveenS 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree also Iseebias

Relevance of Theo physical views

Just a question, what is an encyclopedia article doing with what or what not a theophysist thinks about a modern concept called race ? I think it is fringe and does not add any value to the article. I propose it be deleted ?RaveenS 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the upates. You have put in some good work. I am just a little shocked about how much this article talks about "race" and "genetics" as compared to the Indo-Aryan page. Also, weren't the Nazis of Germany into research of "race" and "genetics"? It's funny how race is mentioned 15 times in the Dravidian people article, while race is not mentioned one bit in the Indo-Aryan article. I view race as a species. As for me, there is only one race which is the human race. Dravidian is not a single "race", nor is it a single ethnicity. Dravidian is a "family" of related ethnicities and languages. While Indo-Aryan is also a specific "family" of related ethnicities and languages. Therefore, Dravidian and Indo-Aryans are two different families.

This page almost was turning into a proof page or a propoganda page. I am kind of confused as to why Sangam literature would be called "Tamil lore", while the Vedas would be concidered "Legends". I am glad that you have changed the title of the section from "Mythological Views" to "Historical Views". Also, I remember that you stated on the To Do List of the Dravidian people talk page about putting a map on there. I so happened to have found a map of where the various Dravidians are located in South Asia. For some odd reason, somebody had taken it off. Also, regarding WP:RS I have many books. As a matter of fact, I would like to quote as many legitimate sources as possible. However, due to other life's activities, I have not been able to post much on the Dravidian people page. However, when I do, it will most definitely be backed up by legitimate sources.

One more thing, please take a look at the Indo-Aryans. That is a really well done page. Lastly, thank you so much for your efforts. Wiki Raja 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists