Talk:Roman Catholic Brahmin/Archive 1

About Chattim
Many authorities who have recorded Goan history have often mistaken this appellation Chattim.This actually comes from the Sanskrti word Shreshtin and Prakrit Shethi,and is also corrupted to Xete in Portuguese and Shetti in Konkani. The Goan Daivajnas (who took up the occupation of Jewelery and trading in other precious metals and gems in their earlier history) are known as Shets by all Konkani communities.The title has been used by them since times their known history(early 9th century).

Similarly the Vaishya traders and some of the Maratha traders have been using this title as well.But thier respective castes are known as Vanis and Dessaiss.Some of the Kharvi families have been using this titles too.

This is the main source of confusion amongst the Portuguese and other Roman Catholic historians who have always mistaken the caste with the title used by the other communities. The later historians have also followed them mistaking to many Daivajna converts to Roman Catholic Shudras.Daivajnas in always enjoyed a higher status in Konkani society. The study of many Communidades where there were many Daivajna Gaunkars ;eg:Aldona,Nachinola,Caraim etc. where the Gaunkars have always been Saraswats and Daivajnas.Now few of the Communidades do not have Hindu Gauncars,most of the Gauncars belong to the caste of Roman Catholics Brahmins only.And the names of the converted Gauncars have been mentioned as Camotim,Xenai,Xete respectively who all belong to the converted Brahmin caste.

To add to it,the Roman Catholic Gauncars from Aldona,Nachinola and places do not really have matrimonial relationships with RCBs from other villages or from the same village.Because the descendants of the Daivajna converts do not marry their daughters off to the RCBs whose descendants were Saraswats.

here ends the discussion.

Reference:भारतिय समाज विघटक जाति-वर्ण व्यवस्था ;Bharatiya Samaj Vighatak Jati Varna Vyavastha by Pandurang Purushottam Shirodkar published by Kalika prakashan vishwast mandal,Goa

Nijgoykar (talk)


 * Could you please add the page number/numbers as well, to the reference that you provided? Also, a ganvkar by definition is a freeholder descended from the Indo-Aryan settlers. Am i right? Joyson Noel  Holla at me  04:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Again
The term Indo-Aryan strictly refers to a family of languages and should not be used to refer a human race.That Arayn-Dravidian theory is just a tell-tale,a part of British rule and divide policy.So do not misuse the term. Moreover Konkani people are not homogeneous.

And the word Gauncar has nothing to do with Indo-Aryans. Nijgoykar (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is under dispute. Could you instead clarify my understanding about gaunkars and provide me with a proper reference to the book you mentioned? It will be of great help to me in this article. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  06:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the book Nijgoykar (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! But a book reference is useless, without the page number. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  07:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Check this link

the last Vangor has got Gauncars of Vishwakarma caste.Camotim,Pandit,Zoxim are Saraswat.Chatim,Xete,Xatim are Daivajna

Nijgoykar (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted the page numbers of the book. Well, if you don't have it with you, then just leave it. Thanks, anyway. Joyson Noel  Holla at me  07:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article?
There is a Konkani community called Roman Catholic Brahmins... those do not have enough knowledge MUST get their read some books!Nijgoykar (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For those want to delete this article..
FYI... u guys dunno anything about Goa,Konkani or the Konkani people.So do not attempt to delete the article.Caste system amongst Goan Catholics still exists. Nijgoykar (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Francisco de Sousa quote
The Offensive lines reflecting the name of Hindu God Ganapathi have been removed from the article Wilspaul (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "offensive" is not a valid reason for removal. don't do it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Those sentences are spreading Defame and the content is vandalism. Those sentences are Defaming Hinduism and Hindu GOD Ganapathi. The article is WP:LIBELWP:SLANDER please dont redo the sameWilspaul (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those arguments don't work here; we get the same about pictures of Muhammed. Try something else and you might find an ear. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont play jokes on religious beliefs. Stop preaching Christianity through Wikipedia. The removed sentences are having DefamingHindu faith and are spreading vandalism. So removed.Wilspaul (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) The content is also spamming, gross incivility. Hence removed. Please dont redo these quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilspaul (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not going to participate in this discussion more, because I really don't know anything about the subject, but I think it's pretty ironic that you're blaming Wikipedia for being too pro-Christian. I know several people and organizations that range from moderate to fervent Christian that hate or oppose Wikipedia because they perceive it as too critical of Christian tradition. Just that you know. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wilspaul, I think that your accusation that the article defames Hinduism and Lord Ganesha is patently absurd. The article quotes a historic account by the Portuguese Jesuit, Fr. Francisco de Sousa, and does not state it as fact. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  10:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, Nijgoykar, if you are reading this, do you feel that this article defames Hinduism or Lord Ganesha? I'm asking this because you are a devout Brahmin yourself, and would not have any reason to be biased against Hinduism. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  12:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it does not defame Hindu Gods but the above statement is made by a Catholic missionary and is obviously biased no doubt about that. The Ganapati in this above mentioned incidence is from Dipavati or Diwar island which was later shifted to Khandola in Marcela Ponda. Nijgoykar (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a Jesuit priest of the 18th century, de Sousa is definitely biased. This does not necessarily make him a missionary. However, i do think that the quote should remain. Firstly, because it is not mentioned in the article as fact, but as an account of a historical Jesuit priest and historian. Furthermore, the source from which it was taken (Oriente conquistado a Jesu Christo pelos padres da Companhia de Jesus da Provincia de Goa) is a valuable historical work on the evangelization activities conducted by the Catholic missionaries in Goa during the 16th century. The quote is mentioned merely as an account by a reputed historian and historical figure. Nothing more! Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)