DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**FetMiddle** · 01-20-2012, 01:22 PM

govinda,

i hear and read you. i understand what you are trying to say, ie the south indian kings did not rule in isolation, but considered themselves part of the continuum that is india.

but then, how did the attitude at the beginning of the 20th century turn up, that tamil brahmins, were 'aryans' as opposed to the rest of the tamils being dravidians. if i heard right, it was the tambrams themselves who promoted this line of thought

again, the people missing, will have references for this. but maybe you too can confirm this..and even now, terms like brahmana tejas, and brahmana kaLai, are used to differentiate us from the rest of tamil nadu. i have heard so much in my own family, even from folks, who are as black as charcoal.

what i would like to know, from you, whether you think, that early 20th century tambram thinking was an aberration of thought, and was more instigated by the sudden avenues to prosperity and self suffiency as a community, provided by jobs in the british raj. this, for a community, which forever was steeped in poverty, and who lived at the mercy of the charity of the other castes patronizing the temples and vedic learning.

also, it might be good to remember, that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the empire was at its zenith, and most on earth, probably believed it will go on and the sun will never set in the british empire. so, when through our taking to english, we hitched our wagon to the british horse, and must have revelled in the jolly good romp the combination was to provide us, in terms of good jobs, security and above all, something that was never there before, pensions!!

maybe you can enlighten us, please and share us your thoughts on the same.

thank you.

01-20-2012, 01:22 PM	#7
FetMiddle Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 441 Senior Member	govinda, i hear and read you. i understand what you are trying to say, ie the south indian kings did not rule in isolation, but considered themselves part of the continuum that is india. but then, how did the attitude at the beginning of the 20th century turn up, that tamil brahmins, were 'aryans' as opposed to the rest of the tamils being dravidians. if i heard right, it was the tambrams themselves who promoted this line of thought again, the people missing, will have references for this. but maybe you too can confirm this..and even now, terms like brahmana tejas, and brahmana kaLai, are used to differentiate us from the rest of tamil nadu. i have heard so much in my own family, even from folks, who are as black as charcoal. what i would like to know, from you, whether you think, that early 20th century tambram thinking was an aberration of thought, and was more instigated by the sudden avenues to prosperity and self suffiency as a community, provided by jobs in the british raj. this, for a community, which forever was steeped in poverty, and who lived at the mercy of the charity of the other castes patronizing the temples and vedic learning. also, it might be good to remember, that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the empire was at its zenith, and most on earth, probably believed it will go on and the sun will never set in the british empire. so, when through our taking to english, we hitched our wagon to the british horse, and must have revelled in the jolly good romp the combination was to provide us, in terms of good jobs, security and above all, something that was never there before, pensions!! maybe you can enlighten us, please and share us your thoughts on the same. thank you.
	Quote