“The ID card did not ask for details of hair and eye colour, or other physical details—only complexion details.”

How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what, apart from prejudice? The author of the article has not specified whether it has been asked for or not. Further, if you zoom in on the provided image, the field above complexion says “black”. I’m assuming that’s hair colour. So why do you make these bold, unverified assertions other than due to agenda driven analysis?

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the latter, given that racial hierarchies are totally accepted in Sri Lanka, for eg, that Tamils don’t deserve equal rights or even human rights.

Based on your initial erroneous postulate, you then go onto gleefully grind your usual axe. All you do is make a display of your own blind racial prejudice (I would have said “as usual”, but that would be pretty redundant by now)

“And, no, I never stood for racial polarisation. That is your own malicious misinterpretation of my position–and I am sure this won’t be the last time you do it either, despite my repeated, clear explanations in the past of my position on various threads with you”

Thankfully, you cannot magically erase what you’ve written and trying to depict my interpretation as malicious will not do you any good. Here is the source where you explained your position (http://www.groundviews.org/2009/09/17/delusions-of-power-devolution-searching-post%E2%80%93prapa-possibilities/) and a few quotes from it.

You said: “Sinhalese are not only a dominant community in SL, they are an overwhelming majority. So to allow them to settle everywhere without placing any ethnic limits would mean that they will in actuality be forming Sinhalese ghettos all over the country, and getting all the benefits of that (support from the community, the ability to dominate and dictate district needs) while the minorities will get no chance to do so.”

You said: “I, personally, don’t agree with secession, but I don’t think it is racist to demand a separate nation for your own community, especially so as to avoid or shake off racial/ethnic domination by another group”

This is not supporting ethnic polarization in order to preserve minority identities? So my interpretation is incorrect? Since you said “I have been a minority wherever I went. I survived, yes, and relatively well, but only by abandoning my own culture and assimilating.” it appears that lacking an identity of your own, and not having the strength of character to maintain your culture while integrating with others, you must force the hapless Tamils in Sri Lanka to vicariously provide that identity for you. Wracked by fears of identity loss, they must, on your behalf, polarize themselves ethnically from the rest of the country and live in exclusive Tamil ghettos. This, you wish to portray as championing equal rights, when it’s just petty racialism in a suitably impressive disguise.

“My quarrel with you was about national identity. You assumed that it was possible to transcend ethnic identity to promote a national identity. I pointed out that ethnic content is always part and parcel of national identity”

It appears that you’re the one misrepresenting my position. I very clearly said that: “This does *not* mean losing one’s ethnic identity in the process, merely transferring allegiance from ethnic identities to a wider national identity.”. But I see where the misunderstanding stems from. You’re hung up on the term “ethnicity-independent Sri Lankan identity” I used. In this, I admit to having been open to misinterpretation, although I had clarified that I did not mean losing one’s ethnic identity (you seem eager to misinterpret what I said so that your own prejudices can be preserved intact). I’m in fact, in agreement with you that “ethnic content is always part and parcel of national identity”. But I do believe that being loyal to individual ethnic identities without being loyal to a unifying national identity simply cannot be made to work, for obvious reasons. We must identify ourselves by national identity, although that national identity itself consists of multiple ethnicities. Perhaps your prejudice stems from the fact that you have little or no idea of the identity building programs in Sri Lanka over the years (including govt. sponsored), in which people of clearly different ethnicities identify themselves as being Sri Lankans.

“There has been a lot of scholarship about the racism inherent in difference-blind liberalism like yours.”

Thank you and I am grateful that you bestow such an impressive sounding label on me. The only hitch is, it’s false. Sri Lankan identity building programmes so far have never been about bulldozing other identities out of the way, which is why I’ve always supported them. It’s only ignorance, prejudice and your own fears of identity loss that colour your interpretations of the situation, not fact or experience gained by actually living in Sri Lanka. This is why it’s always easier to find common ground with a fair-minded Sri Lankan Tamil, than it is to find any with radicalized members of the Tamil diaspora rabble-rousing from afar based on hearsay, the Tiger propaganda machine, prejudice and/or agenda-driven analysis. You’re always eager to attribute malice to others to justify your own desire for a racial ghetto. The only silver-lining I see in the clouds is that more and more moderate voices from the diaspora seem to be speaking up thanks to the timely demise of the LTTE.

You have a very poor comprehension of English

What does these first few words that you reproduced mean?

“As I have pointed out in my earlier posts …….”

It means that there is a previous post which you should have had the decency to quote not the partial reference

You cannot feign ignorance as you engaged me in a very lengthy discourse on this very same issue by commenting on my original post to Niranjan on that thread.

This is the original http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/05/deepavali-dilemma-reflections-from-the-diaspora/comment-page-4/#comment-10802

What proves your DISHONESTY beyond any reasonable doubt is the FACT that you suppressed the FULL statement of which you had FULL Knowledge.

Now you ask me what evidence I have.

You are more MYOPIC and DISHONEST in every sense than I thought

That is a question only an imbecile would ask when the URL of the Netherlands National Archive is given next to the word “Evidence” in the Post that you just replied to

You are worse than that proverbial dog who could not cover its indiscretion.

You are wallowing in it

There is no context needed for the following statement:

“As I have pointed out in my earlier posts the Sinhala Kingdom encompassed the ENTIRE VANNI region. The region that is falsely claimed as the “Traditional Tamil Homeland”

It is quite clear what you meant. Readers can easily verify that these are your own words as I have given the link. So there is no need for you to spin the words.

Now the only remaining question is, what is the evidence that the so-called “Sinhala-Kingdom” encompassed the ENTIRE VANNI region? The only evidence is the Mahavamsa!

LOL

Cheers.

I stand for Unity as I have many Tamil, Muslim and Eurasian friends in addition to Sinhalese friends. What do you stand for?

I am not afraid to face the Truth but you seem to be?

I am not inflexible in my position but your incessant attempts at clouding the truth shows that you are both afraid of the TRUTH and is INFLEXIBLE.

You always try to twist the facts to suit your position. I would like to see you doing that this time.

Now let’s examine your taunt

Extract from your post above
“Off the Cuff, the proud Sinhala pseudo patriot has suddenly discovered the value of science. He was singing quite a different tune before:
“As I have pointed out in my earlier posts the Sinhala Kingdom encompassed the ENTIRE VANNI region. The region that is falsely claimed as the “Traditional Tamil Homeland”
End Extract
You are a very DISHONEST person as you have omitted from your extract the Factual and Historical evidence I stated in that post.

Evidence -: The Netherlands National Archive ( see URL http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2 )

The following statement appears in the above Archive

Extract
During the 17th century the Company was engaged in a war of attrition with the king of Kandy, who had close ties with Ceylon’s Buddhist population. There was a narrow tongue of land at Elephant Pass a fort was built to guard the border with the king’s territory. Elephants captured on Ceylon were herded past here to Jaffna to be sold in India, hence the name Elephant Pass.
End Extract

Note the words …. 17th century ……. King of Kandy …… Elephant Pass a fort was built to guard the border with the king’s territory.

So Heshan what does that mean? Please use your English skill to give an interpretation that disproves what I stated.

You cannot accuse me of introducing that statement into the National Archives of the Netherlands (the Dutch) without running the risk of confirming your demented mental state can you?

Your omission of the above when you posted your extract has PROVED THAT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY DISHONEST

Now go ahead and prove that you belong in a Mental Institution as well

Before asking questions you need to understand what is written.

Remember the Sinhala proverb “Gale Reepu Balla Wage” meaning “Like a dog who defecated on a stone” The dog could not cover what it left on the stone as there was no sand on the stone. You have got yourself into the same predicament as the dog, like you did the last time.

Some people never learn.

The ID card did not ask for details of hair and eye colour, or other physical details—only complexion details. You can’t hunt down a criminal with only complexion details, can you? Or are criminals detected in Sri Lanka according to their race and skin colour? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the latter, given that racial hierarchies are totally accepted in Sri Lanka, for eg, that Tamils don’t deserve equal rights or even human rights.

And, no, I never stood for racial polarisation. That is your own malicious misinterpretation of my position–and I am sure this won’t be the last time you do it either, despite my repeated, clear explanations in the past of my position on various threads with you. Perhaps you need to deliberately misconstrue my argument as race and racism oriented so as to cover up the holes your own position.

Standing up for ethnic rights, for equal rights and protection of minority cultures, is not the same as standing up for racial polarities. As I have noted before, Sinhalese/Tamil is not even about race but ethnicities–the two groups don’t have significant genetic and physiological differences to be classified as racially different. I have said unambiguously that I do not even believe in race as a scientific concept, but view it as a social construct—a social construct that is given a very high value in SL.

My quarrel with you was about national identity. You assumed that it was possible to transcend ethnic identity to promote a national identity. I pointed out that ethnic content is always part and parcel of national identity–though, to serve their own power interests, majority communities like to pretend national identity is culturally neutral, to hide the fact that national culture is usually made up entirely of their ethnic culture. In SL, of course, that kind of chauvinism is not even hidden—it is loudly proclaimed that Sri Lankan national identity is about Sinhalese and Buddhist culture. Even in Groundviews, I scarcely see recognition in posts that Tamil intellectual and cultural (and other minority) contributions are also a part of Sri Lankan legacy.

My contention is that minority communities must be given equal rights, especially equal cultural rights and rights of political representation. That is the move that SL must make to signal its acceptance of minority ethnic cultures as part of national culture, and hence national identity. Your talk of a national identity that transcends ethnicity would merely abort any process to recognise ethnic minority cultures as part of Sri Lankan national identity through a simple, blatantly false rhetoric that ‘we are all Sri Lankans’. That’s why in one breath, Rajapaksa declares that there are no ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka, and in the next breath, talks about needing to incorporate Buddhist principles into governance.

The way to recognise ethnic minorities is not by insisting that they are racially different and putting that on their ID card. In particular, to term it “nationality” is very revealing—that suggests a thinking that equates racial identity with national identity. They should rather have separate spaces for nationality (as in citizenship), and for ethnicity (not race).

So, no, there is no change in my thinking. And my position does not promote racial divisions, but is about unifying the various groups by protecting the rights of minorities. There can be no unity without recognition of other people’s rights.

What you promote is difference-blind liberalism. That’s what’s happening in France right now, and the project is quite clearly about pushing Muslim culture out of French national culture, so that being Muslim is seen only as private cultural practice, with no rights in the public arena. Banning the hijab is a move to make Muslim culture and identity literally invisible, and it involves taking away Muslim rights. Why should Muslims be forced to dress like the French? Does that sound like equal rights to you? There has been a lot of scholarship about the racism inherent in difference-blind liberalism like yours.

“As I have pointed out in my earlier posts the Sinhala Kingdom encompassed the ENTIRE VANNI region. The region that is falsely claimed as the “Traditional Tamil Homeland””

http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/05/deepavali-dilemma-reflections-from-the-diaspora/#comment-11061

So does Off the Cuff now want us to believe his Mahavamsa version of history matches some genetic theory stipulating that Sinhalese are from South India?

Brilliantly written, Congratulations.

All of our ancestors who have encroached on others’ are literally Thugs.

In the SL context it could be Ravana’s encroachment of India or Rama’s encroachment of SL as per the Ramayana and Mahabaratha, followed by Vijeya and his band in the 6 th century BC encroaching on the SL indigenes or the Dravidian’s in the 10 th century AD or the Portuguese in the 16 century AD or the Dutch in the 17 century AD or the British in the 18 century AD, all of our ancestors who encroached on the Indigenous population are Thugs as you put it.

In addition to many aspects of culture and religion, the Sinhalese and SL Tamils share a common gene pool of 55%. Genetically the SL Tamils are closer to the Sinhalese than to their Indian counterparts.

What makes it difficult to share SL equitably?

As for the Genomes this is what Wiki has to say
According to genetic evidence, the Sinhalese have their origins in South India and North-East India, particularly Tamil Nadu and West Bengal . Due to relatively easy access from South India and Tamil workers being brought from South India under British rule, mixing of the Tamil and Sinhalese groups has been occurring for many generations. The Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been in close proximity to each other historically, linguistically, and culturally for over 2000 years. This explains why they share a common gene pool of 55%.

A genetic admixture study found the Sinhalese had the greatest contribution from South Indian Tamils (69.86% +/- 0.61), followed by Bengalis from the northeast India (25.41% +/- 0.51). Similarly, Sri Lankan Tamils have a greater contribution from the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka (55.20% +/- 9.47) than Indian Tamils (16.63% +/- 8.73).Thus, the evidence suggests that the legend of the Sinhalese being the descendents of Prince Vijaya and his companions may not be true, or that the genetic contribution by Prince Vijaya and his companions has been erased by the contributions of other population groups, such as the Tamils and Bengalis, over 2000 years.

This is also supported by a genetic distance study, which showed low differences in genetic distance between the Sinhalese and the Tamil, Keralite and Bengali volunteers. D1S80 allele frequency (A popular allele for genetic fingerprinting) is also similar between the Sinhalese and Bengalis, suggesting the two groups are closely related. The Sinhalese have similar frequencies of the allele MTHFR 677T (13%) to West Bengalis (17%). In addition, the Sinhalese and South Indian Tamils have similar cultures in terms of kinship classification, cousin marriage, dress and housing.

The Sinhalese are likely to have received little or no genetic flow from neighboring East or Southeast Asian populations. A study looking at genetic variation of the FUT2 gene in the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamil population, found similar genetic backgrounds for both ethnic groups. With little genetic flow from other neighbouring Asian population groups. A study looking at protein and blood group loci suggest that Sinhalese are closer to Iranians and Afghans than to Mongoloids. Root and canal morphology of Sri Lankan mandibular molars, also suggest the Sinhalese have closer affinities with Europeans (Western Eurasia), than people of East Asian origin.

Studies have also found no significant difference with regards to blood group, blood genetic markers and single-nucleotide polymorphism between the Sinhalese and other ethnic groups in Sri Lanka. Another study has also found “no significant genetic variation among the major ethnic groups in Sri Lanka”. This is further supported by a study which found very similar frequencies of alleles MTHFR 677T, F2 20210A & F5 1691A in South Indian tamil, Sinhalese, Sri Lankan tamil and Moor populations.

A study in 2007 found similar frequencies of the allele HLA-A*02 in sinhalese (7.4%) and North Indian subjects (6.7%).HLA-A*02 is a rare allele which has a relatively high frequency in North Indian populations and is considered to be a novel allele among the North Indian population. This suggests possible North Indian origin of the Sinhalese.

End Extract

Here is some education for those who do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8-JCK45tc