Dear KRS,
I beg to reiterate my views that are contrary to yours. My detailed reply is given beneath.
You say:
"Closed endogamous social groups invariably develop more susceptibility towards genetic induced diseases and so are deleterious".
I say:
1. I do not feel that Tamil Brahmins are fit to be described as
closed groups.
The definition of a 'closed' group is that the overwhelming majority within the group intramarry. Does this not apply to TB community?
2.They are not endogamous either.
‘Endogamy’ means ‘the custom forbidding marriage outside one’s own group’. In other words, it is a practice of promoting ‘
inbreeding’. Can anyone say with certainty that all Tamil Brahmins or most of them encourage and practice ‘inbreeding’?
If somebody wants definition for ‘inbreeding’ also, it is ‘pollination between two flowers on the same plant’; ‘the union of female gametes’. All these do not happen in Tamil Brahmin families, wherever they live.
It is a well accepted FACT within scientific communities that TBs practice endogamy. Please read this one sample paper:
"Tamil Brahmins are an endogamous group among whom not only subcaste endogamy is practised but also the divisional (within sub castes) endogamy is maintained. This was also evident in the present group when their
marriage pattern was studied.
"
http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Jou...Anth-07-1-069-070-2005-232-Saraswathy-K-N.pdf
This is just from one study. There are numerous other scientific papers who describe TB community as endogamous. Yours is an opinion, mine is based on how the scientists view our community.
3.Again,
what is a ‘group’? A number of people or things together.
Here, the word ‘together’ means either viewed or taken together.
Can all the Tamil Brahmins be bracketed in one group, this way?
Why not? Of course TBs are a social group. I don't understand your argument against this premise.
You say:
A very simple concept really, nay actually a truth based on modern genetic research. I also told you that denying this is against the established scientific truths.
I say:
“Multi-factor Theories”, being the best accepted today, acknowledge that both genetic-biological factors and the influence of life experiences as the causes for one’s susceptibility to certain disorders. Here also, it is pertinent to quote the results of a group of studies done with identical twins and fraternal twins with reference to
‘schizophrenia’.
In this group of studies,
the concordance rates amongst the identical twins ranged from 16% to 60% and amongst the fraternal twins, the concordance rates ranged from 4% to 18%.
One noteworthy aspect of these studies is, they were conducted in different countries, in a time span of 9 years.
My question is:
1.What is the probability of any woman giving birth to ‘twins’? Then, what is the probability of any woman giving birth to identical twins? It may be less than 2 out of 1000.
So are you arguing that within a closed group, practicing endogamy, there is no evidence of increased chances of congenital diseases? Just because people use the twins for controlled studies, it does not follow that in the overall population such genetic factors do not apply.
2.In other cases, the researchers say,
only the unlucky children inherit congenital disorders like ‘autism’, ‘schizophrenia’ etc. (However, we are unable to point out
decisively the probability of such unlucky children).
What the lack of research in pinning down the exact probability has to do with the existence of such increased probabilty? Lack of measuring a fever in a person running a fever does not negate the existence of such a fever.
3.If one asks me, I would say Tamil Brahmins of today are not very keen about holding consanguineous marriages. On the other hand, most of them are very particular to avoid them, not fearing genetic problems the children may get, but because of a wide variety of reasons. (My understanding of consanguineous marriages is different from that of yours).
"The highest rates of consanguineous marriage in South India are usually reported in traditional rural areas and among the poorest and least educated groups. However, close kin marriage is commonplace even in Brahmin communities (Srinivasan and Mukherjee 1976)"
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol81No3/91.pdf
Consanguineous marriage is defined in scientific circles as the marriage between first cousins: there are 4 types: 1) Marriying father' sister's offspring 2) Marrying mother's brother's offspring 3) Marrying father's brother's offspring and 4) Marrying mother's sister's offspring. In our community we do not allow 3) and 4) and we DO PERMIT 1) and 2). (Other communities in TN permit all 4). By the way we also permit uncle niece unions. which also falls in to this category. The above is not my opinion in classification. Look it up in scientific journals. One study puts this practice at about 27% of the TN community.
4.Such being the case, why should we unnecessarily panic and raise an alarm, when the probability rate will be too low or even negligible, in case of non-consanguineous marriages, taking place in Tamil Brahmin community?
It is not just about consanguineous marriages (about quarter of the marriages). Even if we say this is a small fraction, the endogamous marriages, which are the overwhelming majority plus the practice of disregarding mother's gotra has put our community at risk. This is the scientific fact, not an emotional panic attack.
You say:
Yet, you continue to argue against the premise despite these evidences (which you seem to agree with). So, it seems to me that you are arguing from an emotional viewpoint.
I say:
You have not answered my counter question – “In case of inter-caste marriages, what is the guarantee that the probability of congenital disorders will be very less? Is there any study conducted in this regard?”
I have answered this question clearly (have you read this?):"Sir, my premise is not about establishing that marrying a NB will guarantee a progenie free of congenital defects. My premise was that a closed endogamous social group will have increased genetic disorders over time. See, how you have taken my premise and ask me to prove something that matters only to support your emotional stand?
However, let me answer you this way: One of the ways to reduce the chances for these genetic disorders is to choose partners that are far removed genetically from one."
So, what is your import here? That cross genetic marriages are not proved to have the same probability of genetic disorders? Sir, when one studies a closed group versus the general population, the 'general population' includes such cross cultural marriage populations.
Without knowing a convincing answer, how can we argue the other way, with total confidence and with 100% certainty?
You say:
I would not spend time arguing like this with anyone, but since you have been a valuable member here, I owe it to you to show why you are wrong.
I say:
You have every right to say/do that.
I have asked you several questions in my previous posting. You conveniently ignore answering them. How about answering my question under item #1 in my previous posting?
You say:
Again, please do not argue that science supports your pet theory without knowing the underlying facts. Please say that your theory is good on the basis of culture and sociology.
I say:
I do not have any ‘pet theories’. Whatever I have presented herein were from what I read from the sources known to me. These sources have nothing to do with culture, but include sociology among other fields.
Fair enough. Then why don't you give me references as to where from you get your ideas? I am eager to understand your sources.
You say:
I am very sorry to say that you have taken a very unsupportable position.
I say:
I am also sorry, if I am unable to convince you. This inability on my part may be construed as anything, as one pleases.
I am easily convinced if your 'opinions' are based on any credible research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S: A humble request. Please do not address me ‘Sir’ or ‘ji’. Simply address me by my forum name.
