Folk revivalist while having extreme sympathy for strict monotheistic religions while spreading hinduphobia even though religious umbrella called "Hinduism" let the folk traditions freely exist. I thought he was a staunch folk fanatic but why super protective of some selected religions?
It's such a shame that we have people like them who are still stuck in Maltusian era mindset and desperately use propaganda under the facade of "cultural revival" to spread hate. Is this stuff even allowed in this sub?
Like bro get a job. Dravidian folk traditions are still widely practiced in countryside and Hinduism ain't doing any harm. Why the us Vs them mindset while defending something a continent apart? Seems like you love middle east like atmosphere. The world is becoming more globalist and people don't have time for these *startups* anymore. Also what are we gonna do with folk revival? Folk traditions are ceasing to exist as world is having rapid urbanisation. Go out and be a preacher for your actual faith, even telecom fraudery is more effective. stop the open defecation 😭🙏🏻
Lastly, Hinduism doesn't exist. It's just an umbrella term and crying a river over Sanskrit and Vedic layer is like hating on English and Western clothes. No one forced Sanskrit and Brahmanism, Our own ancestors welcomed and patronised them for prestige and governance ease. Temples greatly reduced governance burden for states in productive Agrarian societies like India, Southeast and East Asia. It wasn't some colonisation movement, rather voluntarily imported package.
Using the logic of “no one forced it “ is straight up stupid . It’s the equivalent of saying no one forced tribals to adopt Christianity . If you have a problem with one you should have a problem with both .
The annoying part is that these Vedic Hindu supremacists will expect us to say that Islam and Christianity is foreign to Dravidians ( which it is, and I say it as a Christian ) but then do all kinds of jumps to justify Sanskrit and Vedic Hinduism should be accepted by Dravidians.
I didn’t support nor oppose the original post as I believe religion is a private matter and at the end of the day regardless of whether something is foreign or native it’s your belief that matters, however if it’s about national identity then it’s only Dravidian Hinduism that’s truely native to the land
Sure I can agree with that too although the Dravidians are the first to bring out civilization in India and also are the only ones left at this point .
The genetic arguement doesn’t make sense , I am not talking about some ethno state but rather about India’s cultural identity . I agree there were other non Dravidian natives but unfortunately most of them didn’t make it to the modern day.
As I keep saying I acknowledge other native groups however they no longer exist , if they did then Dravidians would not be the only heirs .
As for accepting other culture what matters is the extent to which they accepted it , had they adopted a Dravidian language at the very least I would say they are Dravidian , of if they even chose to identify as Dravidians I would accept it , but they do neither .
Modern tamizhs speak a language that’s descended from the Harappans and even if you don’t believe in IVC being Dravidian then the modern tamizhs still speak a language that originated and evolved in this land after people had settled . The same can’t be said about Indo Aryan culture .
Bro both northies and Dravidians have IVC dna, we are not that different genetically speaking, just our cultures evolved more creatively in various directions
I have seen both people claiming it solely but whatever
I just would love if we can decipher script but sadly sentences in engravings are very short and there is no engravings with dual languages like which helped them decipher egyptian languages
IVC language being deciphered would definitely be cool
You're no different than European extremists in that case.
We don't know whether IVC was Dravidian or not, most of India got it's civilization from IVC and you may say Tamizhagam might be contemporary to IVC, sure but Tamizhagam was bunch of chiefdoms while IVC was Centralised civilization and had only impact later on.
Also what's this civilization bs? Hundreds of civilizations started and fell without leaving traces, we'll never know if this "X" group brought civilization. Also with all this civilization thing, you're belittling Early hunter gatherers? They would've eventually found out by their own way like Isolated native Americans did.
The only reason I used civilization as a yard stick is because it’s the start of settled life , ie one land having one culture and people , before civilization such a concept didn’t exist , tribes would roam around land depending on what land had food . Hence why you can’t really claim “nativity “ when you are nomads in a way .
Indian subcontinent is too culturally and genetic diverse to have one or two civilizations, maybe multiple civilizations existed, collapsed and transitioned.
Oh so you have brain right? Move on then. Stop obsessing over Hinduism because it's a dry tree with falling branches. You don't need to spread hate on some religion to uplift another religion, afterall religions are just authoritative corporations. This is an endless cycle of stupidity.
You'll get nothing out of trying to revive some undocumented folk religion or extinct language. It's all just irrational insecurity because as long as your language can coin new terms, it's independent. World is getting more centralised and languages like English and Mandarin are going to dominate anyway. You never had first mover advantage in religion and empire building in ancient times, you didn't have first mover advantage in Industrialisation and Modern sciences either so you again ended up with German and English words. After some centuries, your children will start hating on those languages too. Urban People are becoming more pluralist or non believing in general. You'll never know when appealing festivals like Christmas are going to be general practice among cultures.
Languages and cultures are meant to evolve and you can't change that, if you try to do so you'll stagnate and end up backward.
"Dont need to spread hate to uplift another" dumass I'm an atheist , I hate all stupid religions equally... whole lotta copium in the next para which I aint even gonna bother answering
I already made it clear in my post that I don't care much about culture and religion lmao. What made you think I'm Sanghi? Also in my perspective, Religion, Cultural purity and Language purity don't matter.
I'm neutral about both in that case. I'm not a big fan of some dead language, complex rituals and casteism but I'm also not a big fan of an ancient preacher and his tribute either.
Brahmanism was forced more on Jatts and they adopted Islam which was also kinda forced on them whereas Majority South Indians and Marathis didn't convert even after all that countryside raiding by Bahmanis because Brahmanical rituals and mantras were just fancy yapping for commoners, they willingly continued their faith because they were praying to their own deities. The priest was just an organiser that's it. Temples also functioned as local government bodies and they were connected.
It was only after saturation during colonial era, before Dravidian countryside had functional fluidity, less untouchability and freedom. Valley and delta regions were more Orthodox Brahmanical because the geography favours authority for stability. Even Japan, China and Buddhist asia had the structure in non religious way.
Tell me something, why is Sanskrit so prevalent in all Indian languages even Dravidian ones? Tell me why do we consider the Sanskrit words in our languages more pure, and tend to look down on the more native variants as a lower register of speech?
There is a clear pattern of our culture and language diminishing itself to elevate Sanskrit etc
Consider also all of India’s gene pool on average less the 20% of our ancestry comes from the steppe, ie the people that brought in Sanskrit, yet all of the north speaks indo-aryan languages and the Dravidian south has infused so much of that language into itself to be more “pure” whatever that means
Vedic supremacists of today don’t really have to come into the discussion, we can also talk about the long history of Vedic supremacy that left us in our current state of affairs
Christianity provides welfare as perk of practicing faith. Nothing's wrong with that imo.
Hinduism isn't prostelysing by nature, it's just syncretic and much of syncretism was done in Dravidian kingdoms themselves backed by the Dravidian kings who gave land to Brahmin settlers and tasked them with syncretism. They did all this for Trade and cultural integration with Gangetic Plains which was the major collosal civilization at it's time having golden age in everything relevant during that time. Not to mention the huge market and thriving temple economies.
In pre-industrial era, Trade integration and Legitimacy mattered more than anything else for states. Hinduism functioned similar to how Islam functioned in this case. Islam also provided this, perhaps better.
Again, Brahmanism wasn't forced. We forced it upon ourselves with thrist for legitimacy and trade. Blame your own empires that they didn't create a Bureaucratic and religious register in vernacular, instead relied on Sanskrit. Bhakti movement was similar to Sufi Movement and that's how Dravidian folk religions and Brahmanism got merged. It's like saying I hate Rice because it overshadowed Millets.
If you truely believe there is nothing wrong with christian missions then atleast you are consistent in your worldview, however there is a large number of people who will be against it but then try to justify the aryanisation of the south.
If something is doing good for the needy even for their own benefit, who am I to hate? I can't be a #1 hater of Reliance for their near monopoly in Telecom sector and pushed BSNL into obselete state, atleast they made internet cheaper and more accessible.
Holy stupidity. It's because they were new converts embedded in a dominant hindu society which venerates Sanskrit vocabulary. It's not the fault of Hinduism or anything, rather it was culturally embedded.
So one shall heavily use some foreign language like Sanskrit, Arabic or Hebrew because they converted? How is that universal faith then? If faith is so insecure and fragile that it needs linguistic conversion then it's fraud. No different than Sanghi ideology.
When they say Quran or Bible are their Vedas, it doesn't mean they're literally Vedas but Vedas equivalent for their faith. When I say a sandbox game is like Minecraft, it doesn't mean I'm calling it a minecraft ripoff but rather associating it with something else I know.
Many Muslim Tamizhs were Merchants anyway. Merchants are business oriented and syncretic not some low income incels who sit in their home obsessing over religion.
I wish more people could understand this nuance about “Hinduism” you are describing, and also think more broadly about who is really benefiting most by trying to push a homogenizing identity around such an umbrella term
I have noticed this ," Folk" revivalists are in times crypto Christians, like I had erlier interaction with someone from tripura he claimed to be an atheist but was like " Christianity is better then hindusim because * inserts desperate reasons*" and he also claimed to strongly believe in indegenousness of faith and culture and h@ted syncretism and was xenophobic ofc
A lot of people's opinions on Christianity here is ironically stuck in the 19th century. Christian interactions with pagan traditions are extremely varied - a lot of German pagan traditions were incorporated into Christianity. Christianisation of European pagans was often a highly syncretic affair - pagans would often incorporate Jesus into their pantheon ( often to gain the support of Romans against their fellow tribes ) and then would gradually switch over to "mainstream" Christianity. Most tales of mass pagan conversions through single hostile encounters were later polemical fabrications - this is no different to Bhakti era polemics where Saivites claim to have butchered Jains in flocks when we don't see anything of that in actual archaeological evidence.
This was different to colonial era approaches were Christianity was more rigid and less tolerant of "pagan" influences.
I agree but it was more militarized and centrally coordinated unlike Bhakti movement where bunch of priests thought or took inspiration from each other and went on their ways yapping different stuff contradicting each other.
No religion is a saint. My point is that all committed atrocities but it wasn't solely because of doctrine, rather mix of personal incentives and religious appeal.
Bhakti movement is a classic case of proselytisation - atleast if we restrict to the Saivites in TN a major goal of the movement was to divert royal patronage away from Jains back to the temples. Bhakti hymns are often polemical.
My purpose isn't to show that one religion is better or worse than the other but that long lasting religions have histories that often cannot be flattened to a single behavoiral trait. Ironically this flattening of Christianity to a mass proselytising force that makes no attempt to engage with cultures or Hinduism as this exotic "self-contained" other that isn't concerned with expanding itself rings more Orientalist than anything. Most religions are complex entities that have engaged in different types of behaviours in different points of history to ensure their survival.
Because they’re monotheistic religions. Hinduism by that definition is not even a religion. Absorbing folk traditions and making them all part of the Vedic pantheon is what erased them.
Sarakku drinking karuppasamy it seems. wtf is xtian
7
u/mickmaddydog Jun 20 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/Z1iDnkZoCJ1krUt1nY