Re: Factual errors, Ashoka, S.E.A. migrations, etc.

> In the absence of our moderator, we should probably exercise
> self-discipline.

Indeed.

> I think you need to read more carefully what you actually write. In
> the guise of criticizing an article of Dr Saddhatissa, you appear to
> be actually attacking various other views with which you disagree.

I believe I have been quite open about (1) the fact that I am interested in
deflating widely-held views that are encountered far beyond Saddhatissa's
article, and are promoted by the current Thai government, etc., and many of
my comments have been explicitly directed to these misconceptions, rather
than being directed _ad hominem_ against Saddhatissa; moreover (2) my
original composition was quite clear as to where Saddhatissa is being
"intentionally vague" and "misleading" to the reader (rather than directly
stating X or Y).

However, Saddhatissa's article does state that (e.g.) there are artefacts
that prove that Ashoka sent missionaries to Thailand.  Let us be
unambiguous: THAT IS A LIE.  If you want to tell me that Saddhatissa's
article is above reproach because he's very vague about precisely where he's
leaning on commentarial rather than inscriptional sources, I can only laugh,
as you're proving my point for me.  He is indeed vague, and he is
intentionally misleading the reader; and his agenda will be familiar to
anyone who has visited the Thai National Museums.

Saddhatissa's article *is* misleading --especially as to the relative dates
of these artefacts, and what they do & don't prove.

>>The toponym Suva.n.na-giri does appear in the Ashokan edicts ...
>>Thus, there is a sense in which Suvannabhumi does (and doesn't) appear in
>>the edicts --and/or in the eye of the beholder.
>
> This is a red herring.

It is not a red herring at all --it was an answer to your politely stated
question.  You asked me if the word appears in the edicts, and I answered
your question with all due patience.  Why are you taking umbridge?  To
answer a stated question in a discussion is not "a red herring"; it is not
part of my original argument re: Saddhatissa's article, but it is a direct
and sincere answer to the question that you posed.

> Much  of this is irrelevant.

It is not "irrelevant" to the points that you yourself have raised: I wrote
with great patience in reply to issues that you have introduced into the
conversation (and that I had no prior interest in discussing on this list). 
It was you who claimed that we can assume the ethnicity of Thailand hasn't
changed in 2,000 years; you have yet to admit of any positive basis for this
assertion, nor do you regard this assertion as falsifiable by any of the
very substantive points that I have raised in reply to it.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

> The point I was making is that the
> peoples ruled by the ancient Pyu kings, the Mon rulers of Raama~n~na
> and the Mon (and Khmer) rulers of various parts of present-day
> Thailand are part of the ancestry of present-day Thai speakers.

L.C., I do not believe that your opinion is based on any kind of demographic
or archaeological evidence; and I think this sort of assumption is about as
difficult to maintain as to say (e.g.) that the descedents of the Malla
dynasty of Newarese Nepal (today) are ethnically identical to the Malla /
Malloi found in the tipitaka.

> You still don't seem to understand that difference of language is not
> evidence of historical difference of race.

It is true that lingual changes are not identical to ethnic change; and I
think that I've demonstrated my awareness of the complexities of these kinds
of historical interactions in my earlier postings.

The caste system in India has retained ethnic distinctions that would have
dissolved into the genetic and cultural soup of a country like Nepal (or
England) over a thousand years ago; different customs and attitudes toward
inter-marriage, and differing socio-linguistic attitudes, can dramatically
alter the way in which ethnic change relates to lingual language.

I think it is absurd to under-rate or obliterate the significance of
ethnicity in the history (ancient or modern) of Asia; your replies to both
my examples of Han genocidal campaigns in southern China (Miao rebellion,
etc.) and my examples of ethnic change through forced migration (etc.) seem
to show a real reluctance on your part to admit that ethnic distinctions
have played an important part in recent history, and have been subject to
some substantive change.

> Viking raids begin around the ninth century; so I am not sure what
> you mean by the 'Roman Empire'.

Only the holiest of roman empires.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)

As I understand it, Britons were sold into slavery in continental Europe
from the 6th to 10th centuries --although it is true that Viking involvement
started earlier in (what is today) Northern Scotland & Ireland than in
England.  This period of European history is hardly my forte.

E.M.

--
A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
View Streaming Dhamma Video http://dharmavahini.tv/
Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live,
giving up victory and defeat.
Random Dhammapada Verse 201