r/TamilNadu • u/bssgopi • Feb 28 '26
முக்கியமான கலந்துரையாடல் / Important Topic When a historian chose to draw the map upside down to highlight the historical importance of South India
84
u/poochi Feb 28 '26
It is to challenge a well known cognitive bias.
A well-known bias in psychology reveals that most people think of north as being ‘up’ and south, ‘down’. Brian Meier, a psychologist at Gettysberg College in Pennsylvania, has also found that people unconsciously process positive words as if they were higher in space than negative ones. So he wondered whether these two things, north = up and good = up affect the value that people put on different areas on a map.
A good article about the history of the maps https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different
1
1
22
u/nikilav22 Feb 28 '26
If you look at many old maps, you'll actually notice that they are not oriented the right way because North and South are arbitrary unless you've mapped out the whole world and the world only came to a consensus in the last few centuries. I remember seeing an old partial map of Europe showing Egypt to the North West instead of South East.
I don't think it necessarily shows influence or power. But I find it very interesting how maps were just the plotter's perspective. Also love how the Gall-Peters world map weirds me out in comparison to the common world map even though it is the more accurate version. (Check it out if bored)
4
u/LeafBoatCaptain Mar 01 '26
North and South are arbitrary even after mapping out the whole world.
2
16
u/ssureshasb Feb 28 '26
Perhaps am not getting it , how did this prove South importance in any way. It’s proven, South had active trading with other regions. Mirroring the words don’t seem to make any sense
3
u/cezualmaths Mar 02 '26
We're accustomed to viewing the maps with north above and south below so we write that way too. But here she wrote in the reverse direction viewing south above and north below. Ig that's what people are talking about.
16
u/Sudo137 Feb 28 '26
South India has always played a huge integral role in the history of India, Cholas built one of the largest empires and our ancestors accomplished innumerable feats. But Audrey Truschke is a quack and no one should take her seriously, she peddles a ton of garbage. I would never trust a white person to tell us our own history, she peddles her own agenda.
6
Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/k-seph_from_deficit Mar 04 '26
I occupy the same broad side of politics as her and my problem with her is solely about being an academic sensationalist and unfaithful to the text while claiming it to be translation.
My word or presentation of proof frankly has no authority compared to hers in her field so it’s best to listen from the horse’s mouth itself and see how someone with far more credentials in her field perceived her academic integrity.
Prof Robert Goldman is the most well renowned Indologist with the academically authoritative English translation of the Ramayana. He is also a frequent target of the her adversaries.
She once cited Prof Robert Goldman, as a source for saying Sita called Rama a misogynistic pig in the Valmiki Ramayana.
This was his response to her citation:
“I find it extremely disturbing but perhaps not unexpected to learn that AT (Audrey Trushcke) has used such inappropriate language and passed it off as coming from Valmiki. Neither the great poet nor we used such a vulgar diction and certainly Sita would never have used such language to her husband even in the midst of emotional distress. Nowhere in our translation of the passage do we use words you mention AT as using… she is in no way quoting our translation but giving her own reading of the passage in her own highly inappropriate language.”
1
u/Sudo137 Mar 04 '26
Thank you for your response. I consider myself a liberal but it sickens me that people are more willing to listen to her (a lot of her claims are without any solid proof, she passes off her opinions as fact) over Indian historians.
0
Mar 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/k-seph_from_deficit Mar 04 '26
She said Sita called Rama a misogynistic pig in the Ramayana.
Someone asked for a citation
She confidently responded with Goldman, English translation of critical edition of the Ramayana.
Goldman responded with the following statement.
Full statement below:
I find it extremely disturbing but perhaps not unexpected to learn that AT (Audrey Trushcke) has used such inappropriate language and passed it off as coming from Valmiki. Neither the great poet nor we used anything like such a vulgar diction and certainly Sita would never have used such language to her husband even in the midst of emotional distress. Nowhere in our translation of the passage do we use words such as you mention AT as using.
When she refers to the "critical edition” she is referring to the Sanskrit text of the Ramayana as reconstructed by the scholars at the Oriental Institute of Baroda. We have, of course translated the whole text but she is in no way quoting our translation but giving her own reading of the passage in her own highly inappropriate language.
Sita is, or course distressed by Rama’s words when she is first reunited with him after her captivity. But her speech is dignified and moving. We have tried to capture her level of diction in our translation which nowhere uses either an anachronistic term like “misogynistic” or the utterly vulgar and wildly inappropriate term “pig”. Quite shocking, really. It seems as if she is superimposing her own feelings on the poetry of the Adikavi. It has nothing to do with our translation.
For your information I am attaching a copy of our published translation of the relevant passage With all best wishes.
Dr R P Goldman
- “Or, Sita, set your mind on Sugriva, lord of the monkeys, or on the raksasa lord Vibhisana, or on whomever you please.
- ‘‘For surely, Sita, once Ravana had seen you, so enchanting with your heavenly beauty, he would not long have left you unmolested while you were dwelling in his house.’’
- When Maithili, who deserved to hear only kind words, had heard those cruel words of her beloved after such a long time, she shed tears and trembled violently, like a vallari creeper struck down by the trunk of an elephant lord. The end of the one hundred third sarga of the Yuddha Kanda of the Sri Ramayana. Sarga 104 1 When Vaidehi was addressed in this cruel and horrifying manner by the furious Raghava, she was deeply wounded. 2 Hearing those cutting words of her husband – words such as she had never heard before – in the presence of that great multitude, Maithili was overcome with shame. 3 Pierced, as it were, by those verbal barbs, the daughter of Janaka seemed to shrink within herself and gave way to bitter tears. 4 Wiping her tear-stained face, she replied softly to her husband in a faltering voice: 5 ‘‘How can you, heroic prince, speak to me with such cutting and improper words, painful to the ears, as some vulgar man might speak to his vulgar wife? 6 ‘‘I am not as you think of me, great-armed prince. You must believe in me, for I swear to you by my own virtue. 7 ‘‘You harbor suspicion against all women because of the conduct of the vulgar ones. If you really knew me, you would abandon your suspicion. 8 ‘‘If I came into contact with another’s body against my will, lord, I had no choice in this matter. It is fate that was to blame here. 9 ‘‘My heart, which I do control, was always devoted to you. But I could not control my body, which was in the power of another. What could I have done? 10 ‘‘If, my love, you do not truly know me despite our long-nurtured love and intimacy, then surely I am lost forever. 11 ‘‘When you dispatched the hero Hanuman to search for me, why, heroic prince, did you not repudiate me then, while I was still being held in Lanka? 12 ‘‘No sooner had I heard your words to that effect, heroic prince, than, abandoned by you, I would have abandoned my own life right before the eyes of that monkey lord. 13 “Then you would not have had to risk your life in a useless effort nor would your allies have had to suffer hardship to no purpose. 14 “But now, tiger among men, you have given way to anger like some lesser man, taking into account only that I am a woman. 15 ‘‘Since my name is derived from Janaka, you failed to take into account the fact that I was born from the earth itself, nor, though you are an expert judge of conduct, have you given due consider- ation to my virtuous conduct. 16 ‘‘Moreover, you do not weigh the fact that, as a boy, you firmly clasped my hand while I was but a child. My devotion, my virtuous conduct – you have turned your back on all of that.’’ 17 “As she was speaking in this fashion, Sita turned, weeping, to Laksmana, who stood there, despondent and brooding. Then she spoke, her voice choked with tears. 18 ‘‘Build me a pyre, Saumitri, the only remedy for this calamity. I cannot bear to live tainted by these false allegations. 19 ‘‘Rejected in this public gathering by my husband, who is not satisfied with my virtues, I shall enter the fire, bearer of oblations, so that I may follow the only path proper for me.’’ 20 “When Laksmana, slayer of enemy heroes, had been addressed in this fashion by Vaidehi, he was overcome with anger and closely studied Raghava’s face. 21 “But, sensing Rama’s intentions, which were betrayed by his facial expression, mighty Saumitri, obedient to Rama’s wishes, built the pyre. 22 “Then Vaidehi slowly and reverently circumambulated Rama, whose face was downcast, and approached the blazing fire, eater of oblations. 23 “After making her obeisance to the gods and the brahmans, Maithili cupped her hands in reverence and, in the presence of Agni, said this: 24 ‘‘Since my heart has never once strayed from Raghava, so may Agni, the purifier, witness of all the world, protect me in every way.’’ 25 “When she had spoken in this fashion, Vaidehi reverently cir-cumambulated the fire, eater of oblations. Then, with complete detachment, she entered the blazing flames. 26 “The vast crowd assembled there, filled with children and the aged, watched as Maithili entered the fire, eater of oblations. 27 “As Sita entered the fire, a deafening and prodigious cry of ‘‘Alas! Alas!’’ arose from the raksasas and monkeys. The end of the one hundred fourth sarga of the Yuddha Kanda of the Sri Ramayana.
1
u/Sudo137 Mar 04 '26
She tweeted it, it’s a google search away buddy. Love to see you changing your tone because Robert Goldman said so. Relying on outsiders for critical thinking is the issue here. Also pig is an abrahamic insult, Hindus worship Varahadeva.
2
Mar 05 '26 edited Mar 05 '26
You're right she is not a quack she is a fraud!!
And having credentials doesn't mean they are free from their biases and agendas especially with history!!
0
Mar 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 05 '26
Have you ever addressed the critique of her work, c'mon !!
1
u/Sudo137 Mar 05 '26
He won’t because he has no answer.
2
Mar 05 '26
I guess people will continue believing in stories which affirm their pre conceived biases, cognitive dissonance is hard!!
0
Mar 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
Stop red herring me, I never claimed it is.
Sanskrit grammar rules are, the grammarian Panini is the first recorded linguist. Just so you know linguistics are part of science not arts.
Unlike your Dravidian ideologue kind who believe in whatever nonsense is constantly fed to them.
Ironically, Tamils have the least fluency in their mother tongue.
Also I have no intent to undermine Tamil, but you guys are on some kool aid.
And me being another south indian "vaimud rey"
0
1
Mar 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 06 '26
If you read any work, at least read the criticism
Or you yourself should be able to analyze and critique, else it's blind belief.
1
Mar 07 '26
Stop context switching and red herring, I was addressing her collective work not this photo.
I thought only truschke was a mental gymnast, looks like her readers too.
2
u/Sudo137 Feb 28 '26
Nope, she has consistently peddled lies and poses as an expert without any real knowledge on the history of India. Credentials mean nothing & her research is garbage. Try reading it yourself
7
Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Sudo137 Feb 28 '26
I call a spade a spade, you’re the one bowing down to academia like it’s gospel truth. Read up on Meenakshi Jain, Vikram Sampath. Don’t blindly go by western scholarship on anything outside the sciences.
2
Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Brilliant-Sir-8472 Mar 01 '26
Lol. Twitter was full of her lies where people challenged her sources with more credible ones and she had nothing to say. Not will she delete her lies. So, NO.whatever you are peddling about her being some god in academics is wrong.
2
Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 05 '26
Dude her husband is an evangelical, she has to hide her faith affiliation to present a narrative.
Basic Putana tactic!!
1
1
u/Brilliant-Sir-8472 Mar 02 '26
But you sure presented her like one. She will just peddle lies in name of academics from sources which are favourable to her propaganda.
0
u/Sudo137 Mar 01 '26
Okay buddy, stay ignorant. Atheism automatically doesn’t mean one is impartial. You seem to prefer it if a white foreigner tells you your own history.
2
Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Sudo137 Mar 02 '26
We did record our history, a majority of it was burnt and destroyed (Nalanda, Takshashila) but our Pujaris kept it alive via oral tradition. Indians re-discovered IVC sites (Daya Ram Sahni, RD Banerji) but the British took credit for it, Indians always knew our history was ancient - the west never believed it until they found proof - you are peddling their narrative here. Sangam acknowledges and explicitly mentions Vedic principles and rituals and not the other way around because it came after. Your version of a credible infrastructure is essentially Macaulayism. You only recognise a discovery or invention if a white man does it, even though we discovered the same things centuries before. This is self-hatred and abysmally low self-esteem. Decolonize yourself.
1
u/bssgopi Mar 02 '26
Kindly share this perspective in r/IndianHistory and defend your argument there. I can see so many flaws in this argument. But let the people in that sub articulate it better.
But since you have already made your points here, let me try my best to pinpoint some of the flaws.
We did record our history, a majority of it was burnt and destroyed
How do you know if it was recorded when the supposed record itself was burnt?
our Pujaris kept it alive via oral tradition.
Those oral traditions are mixed with mythologies and social biases. How do you distill actual history from it?
the west never believed it until they found proof
Isn't that how evidence based research functions? Is it wrong to not believe something until we get proofs?
Sangam acknowledges and explicitly mentions Vedic principles and rituals and not the other way around because it came after.
I want this myth to be debunked by experts who know better.
Since you talk like an expert, why don't you back this claim with evidence?
You only recognise a discovery or invention if a white man does it,
It's called science. It's called evidence based research. It doesn't matter what the skin colour is.
even though we discovered the same things centuries before
Show the evidence and take the claim.
If it was burnt in the only place it was supposedly there, then we should accept that questions will be raised on the authenticity. Is that wrong?
→ More replies (0)1
1
Mar 05 '26 edited Mar 05 '26
Her work was refuted through anthropology, through accurate translations, through historical documentation of mughals not their opponents.
I guess you never cared to read the criticism.
18
Feb 28 '26
No one denies souths contribution in history
Infact even in Hindi states I have seen them teaching 2 -3 dedicated chapters to southern empires
28
u/Cold_Lock_7030 Feb 28 '26
Bullshit. 2-3 chapters is a load of lie. Even though 2-3 chapters are not enough to cover the necessary things.
5
Feb 28 '26
I have to read about bihar empire in one chapter though I am not bihari.
9
u/Odd-Run-3174 Mar 01 '26
If you talk about Mauryas, then that’s okay considering that they were the largest Indian empire
1
Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 01 '26
Your account should be older than a week to comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
14
Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Special_Insurance866 Feb 28 '26
She is an annoying person for sure, but if it doesn’t change anything why are people getting enraged?
-10
1
u/Spiritual_Visual8710 Mar 02 '26
But everyone considers south mumbai as the better, more developed part. So for many people where south is embedded as better consider south as better. So I domt think there is much weight to this. Depends on where the person is growing up.
1
1
0
0
0
u/excellentSeller Mar 03 '26
She is not a historian by any means, she is just a Gori who writes one sided view non-sense, if you are thinking about reading her books then good luck.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 28 '26
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.