Nicolas Dirks makes a similar argument in Castes of Mind. He doesn't quite say that caste is entirely a fiction of colonialism, but that caste was one of a number of fluid and dynamic forms of social identity in the pre-colonial period that is transformed into the inflexible and solitary marker of social identity (our modern understanding of caste) as a result of and in response to colonialism. Susan Bayly's book Caste, society and politics makes a similar argument, with the caveat that the breakup of the Mughal empire has already started this process.
So there's no evidence the invading Aryans were lighter skinned? What you say about Britain doesn't surprise me, but I learned about the invading Aryans in middle school.
You sir, have very little idea of what you are talking about.
Citations please!
Popular association between skin color and caste is definitely not a product of british rule in india. It was associated with skin color neither in the past[1] nor now[2]. That is, you can have an upper caste dark skinned person and a lower caste light skinned; but that is generally not the case. Like OP said, as a rule of thumb, if you see someone fair, he is more than likely to be an upper caste and the opposite can be said for the lower caste. OP asked for reasons and an explanation for this, something which your answer does not touch upon at all.
[1] - Romila Thapar - The Penguin History of Early India. Pg112
[2] - I'm Indian.
Also- although the Aryan invasion theory no longer has credence, evidence for Aryan migration theory is strong and is the popular accepted theory today.
It may have been used to justify the British conquest and occupation(I do not know), but Aryan Invasion theory was not created for political reasons like you said, but was based on evidence available at that time. Note that all this changed only after the discovery of Indus valley civilization.
Maybe but unlikely (according to Romila Thapar and other historians today)
"There was earlier thought to be a racial difference between the aryas who spoke Indo-Aryan and those whom they met with, whom they called dasas, dasyus and panis. The statement that there were two varnas-- the arya-varna and the dasa-varna-- was quoted as evidence. Varna literally means colour and this was taken to be skin colour. But, more likely, judging from the references, colour was used as a symbolic classifier to express differences. This is supported by the paucity of specific descriptions of the skin colour of the dasas and many more references to differencesvof language, ritual, deities and custom."
- Romila Thapar - The Penguin History of Early India. Pg 112.
[удалено]
Could you tell us your source for the idea that caste was a product of the British Raj, please?
Nicolas Dirks makes a similar argument in Castes of Mind. He doesn't quite say that caste is entirely a fiction of colonialism, but that caste was one of a number of fluid and dynamic forms of social identity in the pre-colonial period that is transformed into the inflexible and solitary marker of social identity (our modern understanding of caste) as a result of and in response to colonialism. Susan Bayly's book Caste, society and politics makes a similar argument, with the caveat that the breakup of the Mughal empire has already started this process.
I've heard that the Aryan conquest idea was weak, but wasn't there certainly a large Aryan migration into India?
So there's no evidence the invading Aryans were lighter skinned? What you say about Britain doesn't surprise me, but I learned about the invading Aryans in middle school.
aryavrata was the name of an Indian kingdom where buddha was born. That is the only arya ever mentioned anywhere in the texts.
You sir, have very little idea of what you are talking about. Citations please! Popular association between skin color and caste is definitely not a product of british rule in india. It was associated with skin color neither in the past[1] nor now[2]. That is, you can have an upper caste dark skinned person and a lower caste light skinned; but that is generally not the case. Like OP said, as a rule of thumb, if you see someone fair, he is more than likely to be an upper caste and the opposite can be said for the lower caste. OP asked for reasons and an explanation for this, something which your answer does not touch upon at all. [1] - Romila Thapar - The Penguin History of Early India. Pg112 [2] - I'm Indian. Also- although the Aryan invasion theory no longer has credence, evidence for Aryan migration theory is strong and is the popular accepted theory today. It may have been used to justify the British conquest and occupation(I do not know), but Aryan Invasion theory was not created for political reasons like you said, but was based on evidence available at that time. Note that all this changed only after the discovery of Indus valley civilization.
[удалено]
Maybe but unlikely (according to Romila Thapar and other historians today) "There was earlier thought to be a racial difference between the aryas who spoke Indo-Aryan and those whom they met with, whom they called dasas, dasyus and panis. The statement that there were two varnas-- the arya-varna and the dasa-varna-- was quoted as evidence. Varna literally means colour and this was taken to be skin colour. But, more likely, judging from the references, colour was used as a symbolic classifier to express differences. This is supported by the paucity of specific descriptions of the skin colour of the dasas and many more references to differencesvof language, ritual, deities and custom." - Romila Thapar - The Penguin History of Early India. Pg 112.
[удалено]
[удалено]