Continued from post 8:
<i><b>Example 3:</b></i>
<b>South Indian Christians, Purity/Impurity, and the Caste System: Death Ritual in a Tamil Roman Catholic Community</b>, David Mosse, <i>The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute</i>, Vol. 2, No. 3. (Sep., 1996), pp. 461-483.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Alapuram, Hindus and Christians share a common caste discourse in which notions of purity and impurity are one, though not the most important, idiom. In particular, considerations of purity are not significant for ranking in everyday life. The restrictions on inter-dining and other exchanges between Christians of different castes are not interpreted in terms of Brahmanical values of relative purity With regard to purity-related restrictions, the ritual practice of upper-caste Christians falls well short of the standards of their Hindu co-caste members, but they do not thereby lose any social status. Indeed, high-caste Hindus and Christians do not claim caste status in terms of 'blood purity' or other qualities of bodily substance, any more than Untouchable castes view their low status as the consequence of ritual pollution (cf McGilvray 1982; Stirrat 1982).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Alapuram is a pseudonym that author employed for the Indian village he observed.)
Now, this lets Hindus off the hook. And <i>in this case</i>, it let's the catholic christians in this <i>particular</i> Tamil village off the hook too. But likely not those in Example 4 below.
<i><b>Example 4</b></i>
<b>A Christian Caste in Hindu Society: Religious Leadership and Social Conflict among the Paravas of Southern Tamilnadu</b>, S. B. Kaufmann, <i>Modern Asian Studies</i>, Vol. 15, No. 2. (1981), pp. 203-234.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the Paravas are all Roman Catholics rather than Hindus. They were converted to Christianity in the 1530s and 1540s by missionaries under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese ecclesiastical hierarchy (the 'Padroado') based in Goa. Under these evangelists the Paravas' Roman Catholic rites and doctrines came to reinforce their Hindu caste structure.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many of these reports to the jati thalavan describe sanctions against adulterers and other offenders accused of defaming the jati and threatening its ritual and moral 'substance'. It is striking that these communications stress protection of the collective 'blood purity' of the caste, and that they use much the same language employed in describing the 'moral community' of Hindu castes in the south.91 In a typical case, caste notables from Kollam Sinnakadai appealed to the jati thalavan to support them in a decision against two illegitimate children born to a Parava woman and her non-Parava lover.92 The children had been denied standing as authentic Paravas and were accordingly barred from caste feasts and church rites, but the village notables were under pressure from dissidents allied to the Jesuits to extend caste rights to the family. The village notables described the proposed recognition as a grave threat to the 'blood' and moral status of the group as a whole. The growing mobility of labourers and traders made this problem of purity increasingly troubling, as in the case of a labourer from Punnayakayal who had seduced a local girl and then evaded the priest's order to marry her by leaving the village to find work in Tuticorin.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Once again, western anthropologists have to resort to comparison with age-old Hindu communities to explain why christians should choose to continue endogamy and jati system. I don't know why this community continues being endogamous even after they converted.
But it's odd to read 'blood purity' into Hindu communities where it was just plain-and-simple endogamy. (Unlike in the Syrian christian case of <i>Example 1</i> where it's based on racial superiority of one Syrian christian community over another).
Can't speak for the converted christian community, the Paravas, of this <i>Example 4</i>; nor for any ideas they might/might not have about 'blood purity'. If they are continuing on from their Hindu behaviour, then they might merely want to (1) maintain their unique community identity, (2) not wish to lose people to other groups, (3) nor gain unfamiliar characters with unfamiliar (which might even turn out to be unacceptable) traditions, customs and habits - that is, gain people who can't be assimilated.
On the other hand, since the Paravas have been christian since the 16th century, they could very well have developed some new ideas of their own as to why they should remain endogamous. Maybe they have thought up some christian reasons for it now, and now share the same motives as the Syrian christians and their converts.
Now coming back to the lame statement in the starting quoteblock, where the writer is accusing Hinduism in India of having the same reasons as the syrian christians:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Such divisions invariably led to a society that was quite keen on preserving blood lines - a thesis that is reasonably well-supported by genetic analysis of representative Indian population in India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The person who wrote the above is evidently unaware that Acharyas and Sages can accept students who then become their <i>spiritual offspring</i>: they get their Acharya's gotram. This happened since ancient times. I think such are the occasions the colonial Brits noted which Dharampal cited (see final excerpt below).
Such offspring have never been regarded less than any biological kind - and in cases where the biological child is a dismal failure, the adopted one is always the better regarded of the two. This is precisely because Hindu Teachers stress the spiritual aspect more than the material. And from the student's perspective too: Mata Pita Guru Devam, where the Teacher comes after Father and before God in the parental sequence/sequence of profound formative individuals.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...topic=1068&st=0
Also at
http://www.vigilonline.com/reference/colum....asp?col_id=182
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed, given the desperate manner in which the British vilified the Brahmin, it is worth examining what so annoyed them. As early as 1871-72, Sir John Campbell objected to Brahmins facilitating upward mobility: "the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines (tribals) goes on before our eyes."
Sir Alfred Lyall was unhappy that "more persons in India become every year Brahmanists than all the converts to all the other religions in India put together... these teachers address themselves to every one without distinction of caste or of creed; they preach to low-caste men and to the aboriginal tribes. In fact, they succeed largely in those ranks of the population which would lean towards Christianity and Mohammedanism if they were not drawn into Brahmanism." So much for the British public denunciation of the exclusion practiced by Brahmins!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now this did not happen in the Syrian christian case even when different Hindu communities were converted, because the convert communities were not 'good enough' to be included in the 'superior syrian christian bloodline'.
<i><b>Example 3:</b></i>
<b>South Indian Christians, Purity/Impurity, and the Caste System: Death Ritual in a Tamil Roman Catholic Community</b>, David Mosse, <i>The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute</i>, Vol. 2, No. 3. (Sep., 1996), pp. 461-483.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Alapuram, Hindus and Christians share a common caste discourse in which notions of purity and impurity are one, though not the most important, idiom. In particular, considerations of purity are not significant for ranking in everyday life. The restrictions on inter-dining and other exchanges between Christians of different castes are not interpreted in terms of Brahmanical values of relative purity With regard to purity-related restrictions, the ritual practice of upper-caste Christians falls well short of the standards of their Hindu co-caste members, but they do not thereby lose any social status. Indeed, high-caste Hindus and Christians do not claim caste status in terms of 'blood purity' or other qualities of bodily substance, any more than Untouchable castes view their low status as the consequence of ritual pollution (cf McGilvray 1982; Stirrat 1982).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Alapuram is a pseudonym that author employed for the Indian village he observed.)
Now, this lets Hindus off the hook. And <i>in this case</i>, it let's the catholic christians in this <i>particular</i> Tamil village off the hook too. But likely not those in Example 4 below.
<i><b>Example 4</b></i>
<b>A Christian Caste in Hindu Society: Religious Leadership and Social Conflict among the Paravas of Southern Tamilnadu</b>, S. B. Kaufmann, <i>Modern Asian Studies</i>, Vol. 15, No. 2. (1981), pp. 203-234.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the Paravas are all Roman Catholics rather than Hindus. They were converted to Christianity in the 1530s and 1540s by missionaries under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese ecclesiastical hierarchy (the 'Padroado') based in Goa. Under these evangelists the Paravas' Roman Catholic rites and doctrines came to reinforce their Hindu caste structure.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many of these reports to the jati thalavan describe sanctions against adulterers and other offenders accused of defaming the jati and threatening its ritual and moral 'substance'. It is striking that these communications stress protection of the collective 'blood purity' of the caste, and that they use much the same language employed in describing the 'moral community' of Hindu castes in the south.91 In a typical case, caste notables from Kollam Sinnakadai appealed to the jati thalavan to support them in a decision against two illegitimate children born to a Parava woman and her non-Parava lover.92 The children had been denied standing as authentic Paravas and were accordingly barred from caste feasts and church rites, but the village notables were under pressure from dissidents allied to the Jesuits to extend caste rights to the family. The village notables described the proposed recognition as a grave threat to the 'blood' and moral status of the group as a whole. The growing mobility of labourers and traders made this problem of purity increasingly troubling, as in the case of a labourer from Punnayakayal who had seduced a local girl and then evaded the priest's order to marry her by leaving the village to find work in Tuticorin.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Once again, western anthropologists have to resort to comparison with age-old Hindu communities to explain why christians should choose to continue endogamy and jati system. I don't know why this community continues being endogamous even after they converted.
But it's odd to read 'blood purity' into Hindu communities where it was just plain-and-simple endogamy. (Unlike in the Syrian christian case of <i>Example 1</i> where it's based on racial superiority of one Syrian christian community over another).
Can't speak for the converted christian community, the Paravas, of this <i>Example 4</i>; nor for any ideas they might/might not have about 'blood purity'. If they are continuing on from their Hindu behaviour, then they might merely want to (1) maintain their unique community identity, (2) not wish to lose people to other groups, (3) nor gain unfamiliar characters with unfamiliar (which might even turn out to be unacceptable) traditions, customs and habits - that is, gain people who can't be assimilated.
On the other hand, since the Paravas have been christian since the 16th century, they could very well have developed some new ideas of their own as to why they should remain endogamous. Maybe they have thought up some christian reasons for it now, and now share the same motives as the Syrian christians and their converts.
Now coming back to the lame statement in the starting quoteblock, where the writer is accusing Hinduism in India of having the same reasons as the syrian christians:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Such divisions invariably led to a society that was quite keen on preserving blood lines - a thesis that is reasonably well-supported by genetic analysis of representative Indian population in India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The person who wrote the above is evidently unaware that Acharyas and Sages can accept students who then become their <i>spiritual offspring</i>: they get their Acharya's gotram. This happened since ancient times. I think such are the occasions the colonial Brits noted which Dharampal cited (see final excerpt below).
Such offspring have never been regarded less than any biological kind - and in cases where the biological child is a dismal failure, the adopted one is always the better regarded of the two. This is precisely because Hindu Teachers stress the spiritual aspect more than the material. And from the student's perspective too: Mata Pita Guru Devam, where the Teacher comes after Father and before God in the parental sequence/sequence of profound formative individuals.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...topic=1068&st=0
Also at
http://www.vigilonline.com/reference/colum....asp?col_id=182
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed, given the desperate manner in which the British vilified the Brahmin, it is worth examining what so annoyed them. As early as 1871-72, Sir John Campbell objected to Brahmins facilitating upward mobility: "the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines (tribals) goes on before our eyes."
Sir Alfred Lyall was unhappy that "more persons in India become every year Brahmanists than all the converts to all the other religions in India put together... these teachers address themselves to every one without distinction of caste or of creed; they preach to low-caste men and to the aboriginal tribes. In fact, they succeed largely in those ranks of the population which would lean towards Christianity and Mohammedanism if they were not drawn into Brahmanism." So much for the British public denunciation of the exclusion practiced by Brahmins!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now this did not happen in the Syrian christian case even when different Hindu communities were converted, because the convert communities were not 'good enough' to be included in the 'superior syrian christian bloodline'.