Related to post 81:
Those were some of the Southist versions of the myths. The Northists also have their tales of the same, but turn it all around to make it pro-Northist. And they mention another group: the 'indigenous christians'. According to the Northist version, the Northists were themselves not originally Indian, but claim they were willing to marry the indigenous <i>'St Thomas christians'</i> (itself a term invented after the middle of the 2nd millennium - kind of dating this origin legend).
Interesting that Northists - unlike the Southists - never claimed they stayed endogamous. However, they claim <i>both</i> sides intermarried - the Southists too - but say that the Southists did so with 'low caste converts'. So, before feeling sympathetic to the Northist side for the supposed 'inclusiveness' of their version, note that they were casteist too.
Reproducing this section:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THE NORTHIST RESPONSE
The Southists obviously have not told their stories without a counter from the Northists, or the non-Southists. An article by an anonymous Catholic priest published in an English language Kerala newspaper on 26 March 1924 recounts the division of the Syrian immigrants but inverts the ranks of the parties formed (George 1964, 83-86). <b>The Northerners were the " upper class "</b> of the immigrants, including Thomas of Cana. They settled in the North of Cranganore, intermarried with the indigenous St. Thomas Christians, received a set of privileges from the monarch and were considered the equals of the Nambudiri Brahmins. <b>The Southerners were their attendants and formed marriage alliances with the indigenous low caste converts.</b>
" The St. Thomas Christians sedulously kept themselves apart from the Sudhists. This is the origin of the two classes in Malabar." Both sides accept converts and intermarry but now the Northists ally themselves with the indigenous Christians (unmentioned or degraded in Southist versions) while the Southists, already a lower class, amalgamate themselves with new Christians of low rank and are consequently kept from associating with the Northists. They may worship in Northist churches but are relegated to " the lower half." <b>This narrator is careful to approve the universal Christian communion but maintains that the Southists are " lower " members of that communion. The " purity " of the Southists is born of their exclusion from any intermixture with the higher orders of foreign or native Christians.</b> The author states that this negates the " high pretensions " which the Southists express in their legends. An aged Syrian Christian woman echoed the attitude of the 1924 article in informing me that the Southists today have great pretentions, but when she was young she and her family always recognized that they were " a little bit lower " than the Syrian Christians.
Other Northist stories are not so kind. They trace the origins of the Southists to a <b>dobi, a washerwoman</b>, whom Thomas of Cana took as concubine. The mother of the Northists is not even mentioned.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Southists are called accharan kettikal, " ash-tiers," from the custom they reputedly once observed of carrying a little ash in the corner of the sari or dhoti. This, Northists explain, commemorates the dobi ancestress since dobis typically use wood-ash as a source of caustic soda in their washing work, and often appear sullied by the substance. Southists agree that they once tied ash but deny any descent from a dobi. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The article then narrates 3 different myths that the Knanaya/Southists give just for this 'ash-tying practise'. Apparently everything concerning Syrian christians requires multiple mutually-exclusive legends and myths to explain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The legend of the two wives of Thomas of Cana has been narrated to serve the purposes of different parties: to assert the superiority and exclusiveness of the Southists; to promote an image of Malabar Christians suited to the uses of missionaries or of ethnologists. Both stories agree that the ash-tieing practice sets the Southists apart, but disagree fiercely about its import. The issues are the same as in the other division narratives: <b>purity/impurity of bloodline, legitimacy</b> and continuity of tradition.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a different Northist myth explaining the N-S divide there's more casteism:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Northists attempted, however, to subvert Southist reactions to their version. In an elaborate story collected by Hambye, the translator of Cardinal Tisserant's volume (1957, 9n), the dobi was not Thomas of Cana's concubine but merely under his protection. He married her to a boy of the Marar caste (a low caste) and the seven daughters born of this union married seven of the Syrian immigrants living on South St., giving rise to the Southists. <b>This insulates Thomas of Cana entirely from the Southist bloodstream, matches a dobi with a low caste boy and introduces their blood into the pool of the Syrians.</b> Numbering seven daughters married to seven male Syrians covers the Southist claim of having come to India in seven exogamous clans. This prevents the Southists from saying that the dobi married into only one clan and that clan fell away. All the clans are equally her offspring, and equally not descended from Thomas of Cana.
This legend derives the Southists from a dobi, removes them from Thomas of Cana's bloodline and runs down another of their pretentions at the same time. Perhaps there were other legends in which Southists took account of Northist legends degrading Southists and vice-versa. The remaining fragments suggest the bitterness of the antagonism between the two groups.
A Syrian Catholic journalist offered me a timely derivation of the Southists from the dobi.<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One time the dobis working for the Maharaja of Cranganore went on strike. The Maharaja sent to Syria for new dobis. Their children are the Cananites.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now with that final statement just above, which introduces Canaanites, the Southists are made to have slave ancestry ancestry and from foreign shores too.
Why do I get the feeling the N and S Syrian christians hated each other...
Those were some of the Southist versions of the myths. The Northists also have their tales of the same, but turn it all around to make it pro-Northist. And they mention another group: the 'indigenous christians'. According to the Northist version, the Northists were themselves not originally Indian, but claim they were willing to marry the indigenous <i>'St Thomas christians'</i> (itself a term invented after the middle of the 2nd millennium - kind of dating this origin legend).
Interesting that Northists - unlike the Southists - never claimed they stayed endogamous. However, they claim <i>both</i> sides intermarried - the Southists too - but say that the Southists did so with 'low caste converts'. So, before feeling sympathetic to the Northist side for the supposed 'inclusiveness' of their version, note that they were casteist too.
Reproducing this section:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THE NORTHIST RESPONSE
The Southists obviously have not told their stories without a counter from the Northists, or the non-Southists. An article by an anonymous Catholic priest published in an English language Kerala newspaper on 26 March 1924 recounts the division of the Syrian immigrants but inverts the ranks of the parties formed (George 1964, 83-86). <b>The Northerners were the " upper class "</b> of the immigrants, including Thomas of Cana. They settled in the North of Cranganore, intermarried with the indigenous St. Thomas Christians, received a set of privileges from the monarch and were considered the equals of the Nambudiri Brahmins. <b>The Southerners were their attendants and formed marriage alliances with the indigenous low caste converts.</b>
" The St. Thomas Christians sedulously kept themselves apart from the Sudhists. This is the origin of the two classes in Malabar." Both sides accept converts and intermarry but now the Northists ally themselves with the indigenous Christians (unmentioned or degraded in Southist versions) while the Southists, already a lower class, amalgamate themselves with new Christians of low rank and are consequently kept from associating with the Northists. They may worship in Northist churches but are relegated to " the lower half." <b>This narrator is careful to approve the universal Christian communion but maintains that the Southists are " lower " members of that communion. The " purity " of the Southists is born of their exclusion from any intermixture with the higher orders of foreign or native Christians.</b> The author states that this negates the " high pretensions " which the Southists express in their legends. An aged Syrian Christian woman echoed the attitude of the 1924 article in informing me that the Southists today have great pretentions, but when she was young she and her family always recognized that they were " a little bit lower " than the Syrian Christians.
Other Northist stories are not so kind. They trace the origins of the Southists to a <b>dobi, a washerwoman</b>, whom Thomas of Cana took as concubine. The mother of the Northists is not even mentioned.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Southists are called accharan kettikal, " ash-tiers," from the custom they reputedly once observed of carrying a little ash in the corner of the sari or dhoti. This, Northists explain, commemorates the dobi ancestress since dobis typically use wood-ash as a source of caustic soda in their washing work, and often appear sullied by the substance. Southists agree that they once tied ash but deny any descent from a dobi. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The article then narrates 3 different myths that the Knanaya/Southists give just for this 'ash-tying practise'. Apparently everything concerning Syrian christians requires multiple mutually-exclusive legends and myths to explain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The legend of the two wives of Thomas of Cana has been narrated to serve the purposes of different parties: to assert the superiority and exclusiveness of the Southists; to promote an image of Malabar Christians suited to the uses of missionaries or of ethnologists. Both stories agree that the ash-tieing practice sets the Southists apart, but disagree fiercely about its import. The issues are the same as in the other division narratives: <b>purity/impurity of bloodline, legitimacy</b> and continuity of tradition.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a different Northist myth explaining the N-S divide there's more casteism:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Northists attempted, however, to subvert Southist reactions to their version. In an elaborate story collected by Hambye, the translator of Cardinal Tisserant's volume (1957, 9n), the dobi was not Thomas of Cana's concubine but merely under his protection. He married her to a boy of the Marar caste (a low caste) and the seven daughters born of this union married seven of the Syrian immigrants living on South St., giving rise to the Southists. <b>This insulates Thomas of Cana entirely from the Southist bloodstream, matches a dobi with a low caste boy and introduces their blood into the pool of the Syrians.</b> Numbering seven daughters married to seven male Syrians covers the Southist claim of having come to India in seven exogamous clans. This prevents the Southists from saying that the dobi married into only one clan and that clan fell away. All the clans are equally her offspring, and equally not descended from Thomas of Cana.
This legend derives the Southists from a dobi, removes them from Thomas of Cana's bloodline and runs down another of their pretentions at the same time. Perhaps there were other legends in which Southists took account of Northist legends degrading Southists and vice-versa. The remaining fragments suggest the bitterness of the antagonism between the two groups.
A Syrian Catholic journalist offered me a timely derivation of the Southists from the dobi.<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One time the dobis working for the Maharaja of Cranganore went on strike. The Maharaja sent to Syria for new dobis. Their children are the Cananites.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now with that final statement just above, which introduces Canaanites, the Southists are made to have slave ancestry ancestry and from foreign shores too.
Why do I get the feeling the N and S Syrian christians hated each other...