indi.ca

17 Comments

1. 

   I think there is a difference between RACE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans) ] and ETHNICITY isn’t there?

   It would be a misnomer to pretend as if Tamil is just a language. Such a description would be more apt to describe Sinhalese. The thing is that in Sri Lanka, Tamil-speaking Muslims do not think of themselves as belonging to the Tamil ethnic group but in Tamil nadu, Muslims there consider themselves to be Tamils who follow the Islamic religion. In Tamil Nadu there are Tamil Muslims but in Sri Lanka there are no Tamil Muslims only Tamil-speaking Muslims; “Muslim” in Sri Lanka is recognised as both an ethnic and religious term. Earlier in the colonial times the more accurate term Moor was used more frequently (ie, the Muslims of Sri Lanka were never recognized as Tamils by the State). In anycase, today I think Sri Lankan Muslims are divided into three main groups – the largest group speak Tamil as their mother tongue, a small minority speak Sinhalese as their mother tongue (yes they do exist), and there is a very small minority elite who use English as their mother tongue. Of course there are a large number of bilinguals/trilinguals within that community too.

   The reason I say that Sinhala is just a language is because I think the Sinhalese people are really a local product of various groups of people who have made Sri Lanka home throughout the last two millenia or so. This includes people from what is now North India, South India, Veddahs, Portuguese/Dutch, Malays etc. Basically, the Sinhalese are a bunch of mongrels and there are many among them who have Tamil ancestry but who have now assimilated into the Sinhalese identity and see themselves as Sinhalese (This process of assimilation is still going on in places like Colombo and Negombo/Chilaw). Many others have Malayali ancestry. Yet others have Telugu ancestry. If we were to go by the Mahavamsa’s “Vanga” that would include people who now consider themselves Bengali. Earlier in history the “uniting feature” among the various groups was Buddhism and a Prakrit-based language, nothing more; the Sinhalese identity came about quite a bit later. You can see elements of tree-worshiping, animism, Hinduism, and Protestant Christianity in native Sri Lankan Buddhism which provides evidence for this process of assimilation. The “Burghers” for example, would have been Sinhalese if the colonials didn’t insist on creating a separate identity for them based on having European ancestry on their father’s side — meaning those who had European ancestry on their mother’s side have assimilated into Sinhalese society and don’t even know it. So ‘Sinhalese’ is just an identity that came about from various people mixing together and giving up their old individual identities in favour of a common one. It is like people migrating to, say, the United States and then calling themselves “American” after integrating into society there. It is very native to Sri Lanka and quite unique. Not withstanding the cultural purists, this is one of the reasons why I think the Sinhalese community in general are quite open, relatively liberal and outgoing in comparison to the Tamil community who IMO are far more reserved, and ethnocentric (I don’t mean that in a negative way).

2. 

   Your comments on “Muslim” being an ethnicity has already been debunked in a previous thread. Why are you rehashing it here when you have abandoned it there?

   “Burgher” was not a separate identity. It was a designation given to the resident of a Dutch town (burgh) and was the equivalent of the term “citizen”. It was a paternally passed on designation because that was how hereditary title was passed at the time. It wasn’t necessarily reserved for Eurasians either, but for all Dutch colonial “citizens” who weren’t actually citizens of Holland. It also included Sinhalese and Tamils who had been given citizenship (and Dutch names) like the Ondaatjes and the Bloks (from the Dutch name Bloch, Anglicized during the British period). It became an ethnicity only after British colonisation, first as a way to differentiate the Dutch Eurasians (who were mostly Protestant) from the Portugese Eurasians (who were mostly Roman Catholic). Somewhere during the British period it came to include other Northwest European Eurasians from Scandinavia to Switzerland and from Ireland to Germany (many of whom were also Roman Catholic), eventually becoming the term for a Eurasian. Sinhalese and Tamil Burghers either embraced that ethnicity and integrated with it, or reverted back to their original ethnicities and religions.

3. 

   language, traditions, customs isn’t really a good way to tell who is who. Good way is to use genetics. I see that Mr.DBSJ has skipped mentioning that part (he does that).

   Well most studies agree that there is a little difference among the various ethnic groups in the Island.

   (For those who start postings saying that sinhaleese are tamils): Well they are not. And according to the latest evidence (most agreed theory) Sinhalese are more related to the Bengalis (people who are in Bengal).

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sinhalese
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sri_Lankan_Tamils

4. 

   I think the bulk of the people of Sri Lanka, both Sinhalese and Tamils originated in Kerala.

5. 

   I don’t think anything has been “debunked” to be honest. The term Muslim *is* used as as both an ethnic and a religious term in Sri Lanka, when it really shouldn’t be. People, or the media at large, hardly use the term ‘Moor’ and ‘Malay.’ Instead the term “Muslim” is used indiscriminately. I have not ‘abandoned’ this assertion and I am at a loss to understand where you seem to have got that idea from. When was the last time someone answered that they were of Moor ethnicity like people say “I am Sinhalese” or “I am Tamil?” I can’t really think of any in my experience; more often than not the answer is “I am Muslim” (ie not of Sinhalese or Tamil ethnicity).

   Thanks for the info about the Burghers. But still, IMO the Burghers are really an ‘ethnic group’ formed simply because of arbitrary colonial designations. I do think if not for this arbitrary designation as a separate group by the colonial government, the vast majority of Burghers would be Sinhalese – even with their Dutch surnames which would have been absorbed the same way all the Pereras, De Silvas, Rodrigos, De Mels, De Alwis, Fonsekas have been, many of which are now considered to be typical Sinhalese names. I don’t think I would be wrong in stating that there are quite a few Sinhalese who look far more ‘European’ and are fairer than a lot of the Burghers who have a supposed direct European ancestry, and it’s pretty obvious that some Sinhalese do have some European ancestry down the line but consider themselves fully Sinhalese today. Perhaps these are all those who have European ancestry on their mother’s side but were not recognized as “Burghers” by law in the past and so assimilated into the Sinhalese identity?

6. 

   i need to clarify this. Sinhalese don’t really descendent from Tamils in India.

7. 

   well genetics says otherwise.

8. 

   I cannot about the Tamils, but I think quite a significant portion of the Sinhalese do have Malayali ancestry and the Sinhalese community at large have adopted a few Malayali customs and traditions (ie use of and belief in magic/spells and auspicious times, kapuralas, redde & hatte as a traditional costume, influence of a matriarchal society). I don’t think it is purely an accident that both Kerala and Sri Lanka have some of the best HDI indicators in South Asia where women have relatively more freedom in society and female infanticide is unheard of (contrasted with Tamil Nadu). I’m sure the State’s policies have had an important role but I think the attitudes of society at large have also played a role there. There have been linguistic borrowings as well (just like Sinhalese has borrowed from Tamil speakers who have assimilated into the Sinhalese identity). For example, the Malayali word for “cat” is “poocha” –> “poosa” in Sinhalese. The word “poosa” has no Indo-Aryan cognates.

   Then take a look at this. This is how the word “gangaa” is written in Sinhalese and Malayali script ( http://i45.tinypic.com/2ur8lyw.jpg ) — on the left is Sinhalese and on the right Malayali. I’m not kidding. It’s basically the same.

9. 

   *Sorry I should have written malayalam script.

10. 

    I don’t doubt there is a ‘North Indian’ component to the Sinhalese. If not, the Sinhalese would not be speaking an Indo-Aryan language separated by thousands of kilometres from its sister Indo-Aryan languages like Gujarati/Hindi/Oriya/Bengali/Marathi etc. The Maldivians also speak an Indo-Aryan language called Dhivehi which is very closely related to Sinhalese (Izeth Hussein calls the Maldivians “Muslim Sinhalese” with some merit I think). Clearly there was some sort of migration thousands of years ago to the island by Prakrit language speakers and these people did create a successful civilization centered around what is today Anuradhapura and started the beginnings of the ‘Sinhalese people.’ That was long, long ago. But the most recent contributions to the Sinhalese population have been largely from what is now South India. This includes Tamils, Malayalis and Telugu people who have discarded their old ethnic identities and embraced the Sinhalese identity. They are as much Sinhalese as any other person who regards themselves as Sinhalese – it is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about.

11. 

    Just because someone ignorantly uses a term doesn’t mean that that is the correct definition :D So to cite media usage of “Muslim” to cover Malays and Moors is ridiculous, as ridiculous as claiming that since you haven’t heard anyone say “I am a Moor”, that that settles it. Most Sinhalese write “Sinhala” on forms where nationality is queried. That doesn’t mean that that’s their nationality. I suggested you abandoned the previous debate because you er… abandoned it.

    To say that the Burgher ethnicity came about because of an arbitrary colonial decision is just as silly. You might as well say that the Brit decision to grant Ceylon a separate identity was just as arbitrary, and that therefore we would simply have been assimilated into India if they had not. As already explained to you, the original definition had nothing to with ethnicity, but rather citizenship. The British legal recognition of the Burghers as an ethnic group in 1883 came in equal part from the Burghers themselves as from the British desire to differentiate the Eurasians from the British themselves.

    The Pereras, de Silvas, and other Portuguese names have nothing really to do with ethnicity. Those names were largely given to Sinhalese converts (mostly forced) to Roman Catholicism. The people were still Sinhalese. Many have since reconverted to Buddhism. So it’s not absorption as you suggest.

    Therefore it is not an arbitrary colonial decision that created the Burgher ethnicity, but a decision that defined an ethnic group as “Burgher”; ie giving it a unique name. If the Brits had not done so, the term would have been “Eurasian” or “Euro-Lankans” or something like the “Anglo-Indians” of India, who are distinct to the Portuguese-descended Goanese. There is no reason to believe that any sort of assimilation would have happened. If at all, an absorption has happened because of the stipulation that the paternal line must be recorded intact, thereby cutting adrift those who were Burgher on the maternal side. Even then, many of these Burghers simply adopted the maternal surname and considered themselves Burgher. They just couldn’t become full members of the DBU. I am Tamil on my mother’s side, so technically a Burgher, but actually only half-Burgher. My father’s sister married a gentleman who had a Burgher mother, making him technically Tamil, but actually half-Burgher like me. Their children are three-quarters Burgher, but technically Tamil. They adopted their grandmother’s Burgher surname and are Burgher in everything but ID card. So it is only the definition of the ethnicity that can be considered arbitrary; the ethnicity itself is pretty distinct.

    And no, many Buddhist Sinhalese do not consider Fonseka or Rodrigo to “typical” Sinhalese names like Jayatillake, Rajapakse, etc.

12. 

    Language, customs,etc. are not good indicators say who is who. Obviously most or all in the country will share some or more genetics with indian tamils because we have been neighbors for thousands of years.

    same way most the sinhalese will have tamil genes. Tamils will have sinhalese.

    But according to genatics, sinhalese are more bengali than indian tamil.

    BTW “puss (have u ever herd of “puss in boots”)” for cat is a Germanic word according to the Wiktionary.

13. 

    On the subject of Burghers, your main misunderstanding is that the Sinhalese with names like Perera and Fernando were once upon a time Eurasian or Burgher. They were not. They were Sinhalese converts to Roman Catholicism. The absorption happens only when the Burgher names are lost — ie when Burgher women marry non-Burgher men.

14. 

    No abandoning here, sorry. The term “Muslim” is used as an ethnic and religious term in Sri Lanka, whether you want to accept it or not. I’m not a fan of it, but that’s they way it is in today’s Sri Lanka. And Sri Lankan Muslims themselves use the term both as an ethnic and religious marker; there is no question about it. You’re right about ‘nationality,’ the proper term should be ethnicity. But that does not change the fact that the term “Muslim” is used in a confusing and inaccurate fashion in Sri Lanka. I haven’t heard many people saying that they are “Sri Lankan Moor” it is usually “Sri Lankan Muslim.”

    I don’t think it’s “silly” at all to state that Burgher ethnicity came about because of an arbitrary colonial decision. The Burghers as a community are basically a colonial creation, especially considering the fact any maternal European ancestry has been totally ignored and thrown out of the said community lock stock and barrel; it is very artificial and arbitrary. A community that is formed ‘naturally’ will take into account both the mother and father’s side, don’t you think? The formation of the Burgher community is no different to, say, a Sinhalese mother and a Tamil father having mixed children who then go on to have children with other Sinhalese, who then go onto have children with other Sinhalese (actual story for many of today’s Sinhalese), except with the Burghers a colonial ruling created a special group following a European paternal ancestry line. I’m sure you will accept that there is nothing ‘extra special’ so to speak in having some European (read white) ancestry/’blood’down one’s line of ancestry – everyone’s a human being. But that is exactly what the colonial ruling does – make something ‘special’ out of having some ‘white blood’ (whatever that means). If you go onto the Burgher facebook groups you will find some Burghers absolutely desperately trying to find some distant European link and glorifying it to no end (which they are more than welcome to do) when most of their ancestry is either Sinhalese or Tamil or a combination of the two. All I’m saying is that if it wasn’t for random colonial rules I think the Burghers would be a part and parcel of the Sinhalese community just as many Malayalis and Tamils have become in the past. Let me clarify – when referring to the Pereras, De Silvas, Rodrigos, De Mels, De Alwis, Fonsekas I am referring not to European ethnicity but the particular Iberian names which have – by all means – been absorbed into the Sinhalese community. I believe that the Dutch Burgher names would have similarly been absorbed into the Sinhalese community without any issue, just as Tamil origin names like Alahakon, Ponnamperuma, Palliyaguru, Mudali, Kankanam etc have been absorbed into the Sinhalese community.

15. 

    Sack, do you have any info on the genetics that you can share?

16. 

    Many confusing and inaccurate terms may be in common use, but that doesn’t make them correct or acceptable. We’ve been through all this before. Moors will say “I am a Muslim” mostly because a lot of ignorant Sinhalese don’t know what a Moor is. I often just say “I’m a Christian” for the same reason — “what’s a Burgher?” — many Buddhist Sinhalese That is why I pointed you to officialdom as the defining factor. It springs from your original inaccurate claim that the state never recognized Tamil-speaking Muslims as Tamil; that’s because they are not. They are Moors. You seem keen to dismiss minorities as not being actual ethnic groups, but simply mischaracterization of larger ethnic groups. This is a classic strategy employed by those who wish to remove recognition for minorities. Your comments about the Burghers also stems from this same strategy. You’re not really fooling anyone.

    When you say that Burghers as a community/ethnicity were created by the colonials, you are still wrong. The legal defining of the ethnicity as “Burgher” was a colonial edict, as was the legal parameters of what constituted a member of that community. The ethnicity already existed, and came about by the mixing of European and Asian blood. The latter wasn’t at the direction of the colonial government, believe me. Lol. You seem to be under the misapprehension that if there was no legal defining, there would be no actual existence. This is pretty hilarious. But still wrong. As I have already pointed out to you, using my own family as examples, the communal acceptance of Burghers of varying “purity” (if such a term can be used), regardless of their legal definition, is proof that the legal definition isn’t the only criteria. Therefore, you would be once more inaccurate in your claim that the raison d’etre of the Burgher community’s is a colonial law.

    In your example of the mixing of Sinhalese and Tamils through marriage, you conveniently leave out the fact that regardless of how much Tamil or Sinhalese blood an individual has, he/she is still defined by the state today as either Sinhalese or Tamil; invariably according to the paternal line. His/her birth certificate and ID card will therefore display an arbitrarily chosen ethnicity that may not reflect reality. However, the community accepts those individuals to be whatever their families choose to be. As I said before, the law is usually irrelevant in these matters except when it comes to putting your kid into school, etc. Ethnicity itself is defined by the state, not just in the case of Burghers, but all other communities.

    No, there is nothing special about having European ancestry; nor is there in having Sinhalese ancestry, or Tamil. However, people feel these things are important to identity, obviously. Regardless of what people do on FB (I have explained this point to you before as well), that has no bearing on the reality that a Eurasian community exists in SL, and would exist no matter what the law said, defined by language, culture, and all the other things that define ethnicity. The fact that Moor and Malay communities have not become “part and parcel” of the Sinhalese and Tamil communities despite not having their ethnicity defined by law, is added evidence that a community need not have a law as its raison d’etre.

    You still seem incapable of understanding that the reason the Iberian-named Sinhalese have been “absorbed” by the rest of the Sinhalese is because the former were always Sinhalese in the first place. So there was nothing to absorb. They just swapped religions (and names), sometimes twice. Their ethnicity was never different from the rest of the Sinhalese. The Burghers, on the other hand are not defined by their names alone; their names are just one of the more recognizable features. If you can’t grasp this, I’m not sure how much simpler I must be in my explanation.

    In the end, full absorption or assimilation isn’t totally by chance; there’s a lot of choice in the matter. If the Burghers want to remain a distinct community, that’s their business. Assimilation isn’t mandatory just because they haven’t asked for language rights. Personally, I see little difference in maintaining separate Sinhalese and Tamil ethnicities, given that there’s hardly much difference between the two; but I doubt the Sinhalese would be happy for us all to be called Tamil, or vice versa. It is this similarity that has enabled historical Tamils to now consider themselves Sinhalese. However, you will find that the similarities are closest via a narrower slice of shared culture than across the breadth of the two communities, and that is where the assimilation would have happened. When it doesn’t matter anymore what ethnicity you are, assimilation will happen. You will find today that there’s absolutely no difference between a Colombo 7 Sinhalese and a Colombo 7 Tamil, but they consider themselves distinct. That’s their choice.

    So to conclude, the colonial law defining the Burghers came about as a result of their existence, and not vice versa. I see no sense in your claim that it is only the law that prevents assimilation; the law cannot prevent assimilation.

17. 

    thought it was gonna be some boring outdated submit,
    but it surely compensated regarding my time. I am going to submit a
    hyperlink for this page upabout my blog. I am certain my own visitors may locate in which extremely beneficial.

    My blog: Cyril

Comments are closed.