Comments on: Making Racism FUN for Kids

By: Veedhur

Veedhur — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:00:48 +0000

I read somewhere ( I think in a piece by RALH Gunawardena) that the ‘ethnic’ conciousness itself is of a much recent origin and that when we are looking through glasses tinted by current categorisations at the past which actually did not have those distinctions or even if it had the salient cleavages were certainly not ‘tamil’ and ‘sinhala’

Viyasn’s point is worth noting – and highlighting in the history books to make them real fun!

By: Plain Truth

Plain Truth — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:30:03 +0000

As a Sinhalese, I have nothing but fun memories associated with Tamils when I was growing up. I had Tamil neighbors and we learned some Tamil from their children. My relatives (mostly Buddhists) visited both Buddhist temples and Hindu kovils. In schools, we connected well with Tamil students.

I always describe the current situation as a bad marriage. We always do things to file for divorce (coexistence) than staying together (integration).

By: Plain Truth

Plain Truth — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:23:39 +0000

Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism, give me a break. A minority group can any given time use the Ã¢Â€Â˜Race CardÃ¢Â€Â whenever they see something they donÃ¢Â€Ât like. My feeling is that in any society, the minority is more racist than the majority since they tend to stick together more so than the majority. This is a very natural human behavior since it is driven by the insecurity. Racism is a manifestation of fear and misunderstanding. The term racist or any other similar to it can be the weapon for the ignorant. If anyone has visited Alamo (www Alamo dot org) in San Antonio, US, what you will see how they glorify a battle by white people against Mexicans. There are ton of Mexican Americans living in San Antonio. It is possible someone can claim these white people are either racists or chauvinists. Take for example US history? How demoralizing can that be for Native Americans? I always say the term Sinhalese Buddhist Chuvenist has been invented to justify Tamil Terrorism. Racist people exists within both Sinhalese and Tamil community. Sri Lanka is learning to create racial and cultural awareness whenever they try to express the history. It is not fair to label people as chauvinists and shut them off completely.

By: Valavan

Valavan — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:31:10 +0000

Just stumbled on to this blog post. I am an Indian Tamil familiar with Tamil, Hindi and Sanskrit. I would like to make some comments on Sarath’s comments.
@Sarath : Yes, Sinhala is an Indo-European language but it may simply have evolved from Buddhist prakrit. It is a well-known fact that Prakrits such as Ardha-magadhi were the popular vehicle of choice for propogation of Buddhism both within India and abroad. Given that prakrits are vulgate descendants of Sanskrit, I am not at all surprised by the similarities between Sinhala and Hindi. However, the similarily can only be taken so far. Modern Hindi also has a significant persian and arabic influence and I doubt if a Sinhalese speaker can immediately relate or understand these words – zameen, asmaan, khoob, khana etc. There was a similar prakritisation of Tamil during the Buddhist era of Tamil ( btw, most people don’t seem to realize that Buddhism had a significant presence in Tamil lands as well and Buddhist authors have made significant contributions to Classical Tamil ). Besides, Language cannot be equated with “Race” ( albeit I don’t really subscribe to a notion of “Race” ). Turks ( in Turkey ) are racially caucasian but they speak a Central Asian language. Assamese ( in NE India ) is an Indo-European language but the Assamese people would be closer to Burmese than North Indians. Some scholars believe that Konkani may have been a dravidian language that was Sanskritized. Be that as it may, I believe that the Tamils and Sinhalese basically belong to the Souther Indian family although their respective ethnic identities emerged due to religion – the influence of Pali and Buddhism on the Sinahalese and the influence of Savitie bhakti movement on the Tamils. Recent anthropological research that I have read strongly indicates that the Sinhalese are of the same stock as most South Inidans ( btw, I don’t know why Dravidian is equated with dusky complexion – there are quite a few light-skinned dravidians and no, they all are not brahmins or migrants from the North ).
BTW, I sincerely wish that the Sinhalese and Tamils make peace and evolve a solution that is just and fair to all parties within an united Sri Lanka. I would love to visit your beautiful country.

By: suntzu

suntzu — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:58:11 +0000

Do our Politicians read the Funday Times?

By: Sanjayan

Sanjayan — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:47:55 +0000

I agree with HD, in that the point here is not that we should deny historical fact nor erase it. The point is whether we should be teaching young children (I don’t know the exact age of the kids who read the Funday Times, though I assume most of them are between 7 or 8 and 14, since the age-limit for competitions, etc., is 14), about historical Sinhala and Tamil rivalry. This question is especially important at a time when we need unity within our country.

There WILL be a time and place when they will, and in fact should, learn about our history. Is that time when they are young and impressionable, unable to (for the most part) critically analyse or think about what they are reading? I don’t believe it is.

By: HD

HD — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:46:42 +0000

The author is not denying historical fact nor is he saying to erase it. The point is simple. Every country has a sordid past, The Americans in Vietnam, the Japanese in China, Nazi Germany and the Sinhala Tamil rivalry in Sri Lanka. The facts must be taught but not to children who read FUNDAY. They are too young to know that this part of history should not be repeated.

Let’s keep the FUNDAY section free of violence and hate. Teach the more unfortunate elements of our history at the O-Levels when they are mature enough to digest the facts and take positive action.

By: groundviews

groundviews — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:14:56 +0000

Sarath,

Your last comment on the same lines contravened the guidelines by introducing a wholly unnecessary expletive to make your point, that you’ve done in a far better manner this time around. I am quite tired of pointing out to those who post and comment here that submissions not in line with the guidelines will not be published.

Best,

Sanjana

By: Sarath

Sarath — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:43:25 +0000

Why are my comments being censored? Please let this be. I cannot understand why it was taken off the above comment. Was there a reason?

I have studied both Hindi and Tamil and to me Hindi was a far more familiar and easy to learn language than Tamil. In my opinion, for someone whose mother tongue is Sinhala, Hindi is an incredibly easy language to learn. I started learning Tamil much earlier than I did Hindi, but Tamil appeared far more foreign to me, and I know more Hindi today than I do Tamil. It is amazing how similar Sinhala and Hindi are at the base level, considering that these are two languages separated by a thousand miles and more. Both, by the way, are Prakrit-origin languages although Hindi is a lot more recent that Sinhala. Sinhala is certainly not a Dravidian language. Its Indo-Aryan nature is plain to see when studies other sister Indo-Aryan languages. So I’m sorry I do certainly do not agree with your claims aadhavan.

By: Sarath

Sarath — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:02:50 +0000

Really aadhavan? So how did the Sinhalese come to speak an Indo-Aryan language? The two major southern Indo-Aryan languages are Sinhala and Divehi. There is another one – Konkani, spoken in Goa.

You say “doesnÃ¢Â€Â™t all modern scholarship suggest that the Sinhalese are Dravidians whose prototype Dravidian language was Sanscritised through Buddhism? ”

Can you please explain in detail about “all” these “modern scolarship”? What world are you living in?

Past and modern scholarship places the Sinhalese language in the Indo-Aryan group. It’s sister tongue is Divehi and not Tamil or any other Dravidian language. Howver, this doesn’t mean that Tamil has not influenced.

On a basic level, Just to start of with, the base words in Sinhala are of Prakrit origin such as names for body parts, sky, moon, river, water etc

Start with the numerals:

Sanskrit: ekah, dvau, tryah, catvarah, pancha, sat, sapta, ashta, nava
Hindi: ek, do, teen, chaar, panch, chaah, saat, aat, nau, das
Sinhala: eka, deka, tuna, hatara, paha (or pancha), haya, hata (or sapta), ata (or ashta), navaya, dahaya (or dasa)

If Sinhala was a Dravidian language, why would such a basic thing such as this be clearly of Prakrit origin? Look at the ordinals of any Dravidian language, even heavily Sanskritised ones such as Malayalam and you will see that they are clearly of Dravidian language. And for your information Sanskritisation of the Sinhalese language started quite late in the 13th century.

To eat
Hindi – Khanaa
Sinhala – kanawaa

To go
Hindi – jaanaa
Sinhala – yanawaa

To come
Hindi – aanaa
Sinhala – enawaa

To sing
Hindi – gaanaa
Sinhala – gaayanawa

“yes”
Hindi – ji haa, haa
Sinhala – haa, ow

“no”
Hindi – nahi
Sinhala – naha

“my”
Hindi – mera
Sinhala – mage

“me”
Hindi – mein
Sinhala – mama, mang, maa

“hand”
Hindi – haath
Sinhala – atha

“ear”
Hindi – kaan
Sinhala – kana

“mouth”
Hindi – muu
Sinhala – muwa

“nose”
Hindi – naakh
Sinhala – nahaya

“finger”
Hindi – ungli
Sinhala – engilla

“moon”
Hindi – chand
Sinhala – handa

“old”
Hindi – puraanaa
Sinhala – parana

“oil”
Hindi – tel
Sinhala – tel

“smell”
Hindi – gandha
Sinhala – ganda

“potato”
Hindi – aaloo
Sinhala – ala

“poison”
Hindi – vish
Sinhala – visa

“smoke”
Hindi – dhua
Sinhala – duma

“teeth”
Hindi – daanth
Sinhala -dat

“today”
Hindi – aaj
Sinhala – ada

“black”
Hindi – kaalaa
Sinhala – kalu

“blue”
Hindi – neelaa
Sinhala – nil

“brass”
Hindi – peethal
Sinhala – piththala

“cave”
Hindi – guhaa
Sinhala – guhaawa

“village”
Hindi – graam
Sinhala – gama

This is just a few off the top of my head. The list just goes on and on.

If Sinhala is a Dravidian language which was later “sanskritised” as you claim why are all these basic words of Prakrit origin?