Talk:Ezhava

Martial traditions & Chekavar

Please check the reference cited (24),since there is no clarity.

The term Chekavar is only a misspelt word (spoonerism) "Chevakar' or "'sevakar( meaning servants or slaves ) .The real name of Aromal chekavar is Aromal Chevakar.[[1]] Though genarally ezhava were considered as servants , often they had to fight against the their master's enemy .Similarly a tribal group ( Kurichiar) in north Kerala (Vayanadu) also had the privilege to be assigned for fencing purpose - especially by Pazhassi Raja. So it does not mean that the members of those caste were Kshatriya or warriors.

Truether (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the cite and dependent statements, on the grounds that a botanical book is not a reliable source for detail about martial tradition. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, how can you sa that a a Botanical book should not talk about anything other than its intent? Thats abscure. See, most of the historical books are are written by upper class will purposefully ignore rich heritage of other caste people. You don't need PhD to understand that.

Now the this books is written forign national and have more or less symmetric view on any caste . So the book should be considered as a major source for kerala history~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.58.152 (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nair-Ezhava Gene Theory

Apparently, this article is looking scruffy now and even the citations are distorted to fulfill someone's vested interest. For e.g. look at the citation which is about the genetic study of Nairs are Ezhavas. Here are the excerpts. "Genetic distance estimates using the gene frequency data indicate that the closest groups are Nayar, Ezhava and the Brahmin and Nayar. The tribal populations are approximately twice as far as from the Nairs as they are from Ezhava." - What does this mean..It just says the gene frequency is closer between Nairs and Ezhavas(and is same between Nairs and Brahmins as well) compared to tribal, that doesn't mean that they are same, it is just a comparison between these different sections (nair,brahmin and ezhava) w.r.t tribal. It also says the frequency of Nairs is twice as that of Ezhavas from the tribal which is a clear indication that both Nairs and Ezhavas have different frequency. Take a look at the second reference. "Ezhava to have a significantly lower frequency of group A and group B than do the Nayar" - This is pretty straight forward; it simply says they are different.

Some editors seem to be mocking and challenging at the perceptive capacity of the readers. A handful of new found 'cloud editors' are apparently 'bulldozing’ the efforts made by certain sincere anthropologists and their research for ages. (User Lambodharan)

where does it say they are same? even first cousins gene frequencies may not be same. it just says that "gene frequencies are closer between nairs and ezhavas".

Definition of GENE FREQUENCY

the ratio of the number of a specified allele in a population to the total of all alleles at its genetic locus.

"we are all, regardless of race,caste,religion,country genetically 99.9% the same". Keralone (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I would prefer not to see all of this genetic stuff in any caste-related article as I doubt very much that many of us are capable of ascertaining the relevance, weight and even reliability of the studies. If there was an easily accessed summary that we could use then that would be great, but all the detailed scientific papers really require expert attention if they are to be used directly, and they need "watering down" into a format that does not cause the reader's eyes to glaze over. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well..if that is the logic why only Nairs, rather we could make a statement that Ezhavas and Anglo-saxons have same genes..it is as absurd as saying that all ezhavas and nairs have 2 hands and 2 legs and hence they are of same genetic stuff..the citation doesn't make any sense. There is no findings or studies whatsoever for a common origin of these two communities. Some editors are making this place dirty by adding their own theories which is totally unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambodharan (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there are studies out there. the summary is "The absence of any cluster along with low average GST is suggestive of substantial genetic similarity among the studied populations, in spite of clear geographical, linguistic, and cultural barriers. This similarity indicates either a greater gene flow between these groups or, alternatively, may reflect a recent evolution for them, considering that the Indian caste system evolved only about 3000 years ago."

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_biology/v075/75.2ghosh.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200304/ai_n9235661/ Keralone (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This study seems to be based on some wrong parameters and assumptions by a non-malayalee, who considers Nairs and Muslims as 'endogamous Dravidian' community which by itself is wrong. While Ezhavas can be considered as endogamous Dravidian community the other two cannot be considered so. The Arabic mix in the Malabar Muslim community is well known and Nairs cannot be considered as a pure Dravidian race like Ezhavas or Tamils. If you have to find some ethnic sibling for Ezhavas, then i think we should look at some other pure dravidian races of s.india like ediga,billava, nadar etc. Nairs, Coorgis and Bunts though from s.India, are of different ethnicity. What I don't understand is that why you guys are on this wild goose chase of finding a common origin for Nairs and Ezhavas which is totally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambodharan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

here's some reliable study on this which says all the non-tribal communities of Kerala have European and east asian connection..nothing specific between Nairs and Ezhavas..I would say the genetic study section should be removed as it is common across malayalis..#[[2]]

Edit request from Ss19751975, 25 July 2011

Please change the following, in the section, "Position in society" //Although Ezhavas performed the work associated with the Hindu ritual rank (varna) of sudra, they were considered as untouchables or avarnas by the Nambudiri Brahmins who formed the clergy and ritual ruling elite in the region.[1] This was despite their ancestors Villavars belonging to the Shudras Varna.// Please replace it with the next sentence. //Ezhavas were the avarnas or in other words didn't belong to the chaturvarna system either by their own choice or by use of force.// Reliable source is the book of Dr. S N Sadasivan " A Social History of India. In this book as well as countless other records and official documents Ezhavas are known as not belonging to the chaturvarna system of the Hindu society. Ss19751975 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the page number, please? - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered while waiting on answer. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)}

Ezhavas and brahmins(Namboothiri ) of kerala

The Namboothiri article in Malayalam wiki says that there many ezhava families were socially converted into namboothiris

http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%82%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%BF

14.96.130.30 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use circular references. You would need to provide sources in this article. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure on his reliability, but S. N. Sadasivan has written about this.

• A social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan

"The Nampootiri Brahmins of Kerala have except for their vedic belief, nothing in common with the Brahmins of other regions and it has taken for them over 400 years consistent struggle employing every tactics to climb to the top of the social ladder. Conversion to Brahminism continued through seven centuries from the eighth and Kodungalloor Kunjikuttan Tampuran, an ardent supporter of theirs from the old ruling classes versifies (stanzas 113 and 114 of his poetical work Keralam) that the erudite and venerable Buddhist monks were made Brahmins and depending upon the occupations they followed, the Buddhist laity were declared to be of different lower castes. Although for the Tampuran, this method or conversion and creation of castes has been novel, it has been employed by the Brahmins all over India for vanquishing Buddhism. Even after the Buddhist faithful were, by a large, categorised as Ezhavas, as a conciliatory gesture or as a matter of necessity, selective migration from them to Brahminism was encouraged and according to Kampil Ananthan (A Critique of Kerala History or the Antiquity of the Tiyyas in Malayalam 1935) Nampootiri families of Andalur, Nilamangalam and Olacheri were converted en masse from the Ezhavas who were leaders of kazhakanms or regional assemblies which had the authority to hear and give verdict on cases." (p309)

--Nair (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Sadasivan seems to upset some people but I've never seen a concrete, rational reason why it is not a valid source here. However, in this particular instance he is quoting someone from 1935 whom I have not come across before. Do we know anything about that person (Ananthan)? Are there any other modern sources that can support the statement? I am not querying Sadasivan myself, merely trying to head off any possible objections. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Kampil Ananthan is another self-styled historian from Ezhava community like Sadasivan (There are many such). I doubt him also of reliability. You can search in google for more info. --Nair (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent and scientific evidences of Sri lankan origin

The similarity between of Kalarippayattu (angam)of Ezhava/thiyya coomunity and the martial arts of Sinhalese whose name is also angam is interesting. The 'angam' of Sri lanka is dated back to thousands of years where 'kalarippayattu' in kerala has a recent origin.This is a new evidence recognized recently. 'Vadakkan paattukal" says the ancestors of thiyya warriors came from an Island! The food habits (eg "Puttu" in malayalam, 'pittu' in Sinhalese) old ornamental habits, and surprising similarity between Malayalam and Sinhalese script indicates an past influx to Kerala.

Modern genetic studies reinforce Srilankan origin :- Modern studies using molecular biology techniques are also supporting Sri Lankan origin of Ezhavas. A genetic study conducted in Rajiv Gandhi Center for Biotechnology, Kerala (A crypto-Dravidian origin for the nontribal communities of South India based on human leukocyte antigen class I diversity R. Thomas et al Tissue Antigens ISSN 0001-2815 2006) states that "A strong East Eurasian (populations east of India and central Asia) element is noticed in the allelic distribution of the Ezhavas and its proximity to the Mongol populations in the bi-dimensional plot. This signifies a strong influence of the Mongoloid communities.This is also supported by the probable existence of a Buddhist past among the Ezhava who migrated from Sri Lanka in the ninth century". Since Sinhalese share similar East Eurasian ancestry, Sri Lankan origin hypothesis becomes more credible (HLA analysis of Sri Lankan Sinhalese predicts North Indian origin. G. N. Malavige et al, International Journal of Immunogenetics Volume 34, Issue 5, pages 313–315, October 2007. Shaanvet (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetics is beyond me, sorry. Someone else will probably be more clueful. All I can say is that the quote you provide from Thomas et al appears as a standalone quote to be speculative rather than confirmatory, and that I have seen several articles where genetic analyses have swung wildly from one position to another, dependent upon the source. Furthermore, I wonder if the conflation of Thomas with Malavige amounts to synthesis. My gut feeling is that genetic stuff should be left out, not least because the studies seem to rely on the self-identification of caste members & because the technicalities are extremely intricate, but beyond that the detail is lost on me. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Images in infobox

Can anyone justify the images used in the infobox? Either before or since the additions of today? I know that this discussion has taken place with regard to some other Indian caste articles and suspect that there is little difference between them and this one. To me, they represent cherry-picking and undue weight, as well as having the potential to "flood" the top of the page with visual clutter. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)