Can you provide me some examples not listed on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadama of famous people who were/are Vadamas? What led them to be famous? (Wikipedia lists some, but some possibly were/are not Vadamas, and in any case it doesn't list very many such people).
Tamil Brahmins did not remain fully "up to date" with what was going on in North India. The history of modern North Indians and even Tamil Brahmin groups like the Vadamas is so different. Yet many non-Brahmin Tamils do not accept Tamil Brahmins or at least Vadamas as true Tamils.
Also, "Kala Pani" should have applied to land as well. Obviously, there is a big difference between eastern Siberia and India, or India and South Africa even though the former is still connected by land to India, and the latter was connected by land until the latter half of the 19th century. And in some cases, crossing the sea brings one to more similar lands with less foreign people, such as in the case of India to Sri Lanka, than crossing the land to places like Norway or North Korea.
I would like to have people who are invested in the growth of this online community to help mod this subreddit. If you are interested, please let me know either in a comment or DM me. I would like to see this subreddit turned into a place similar to r/tambrahm with regards to there being many posts related to culture etc. (but a place with a distinct Vadama focused society that may be experienced by many visitors, and where any divisions are mostly regional). But I also want someone else to be available to assume control of this sub if my account ever has some issue or I am simply away for a long time.
Many Iyengars seem to have very similar features to some of my Vadama family members, uniquely so. But also, Vadamas are said to, in many cases, apply gopichandanam in the shape of a U similar to the Namam often associated with Vaishnavavas. As such, I am wondering whether Iyengars and Vadamas are related more than other Tambrahms, or at least whether this is the case for Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers. But, in any case, the religious differences etc. are still quite significant, and what is deemed significantly ancestral for each is not entirely shared, so I am not suggesting Iyengars and Vadamas should base the existence of their distinct identities on whether or not there is some common long-lost ancestral connection, even if there is such a significant connection. They should still continue to have somewhat distinct identities in any case.
I don't believe gated communities are necessarily a good idea, but nonetheless, take a look at this Umiya Mataji Mandir in Macon, Georgia (a city which has nearly no Indians and has a relatively high poverty rate relative to Atlanta) and the "Umiya Circle" gated community next to it along with the nearby Indian restaurant. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Umiya+Mataji+Mandir+Macon+Ga/@32.8022154,-83.731392,128a,34.3y,234.91h,86.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQ1O5vwmLFLqWwWxxQXtPwQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.9084687949673196%26panoid%3DQ1O5vwmLFLqWwWxxQXtPwQ%26yaw%3D234.91382876634145!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x88f3fa45ed2766f1:0xc2a2245f05a88155!8m2!3d32.8019943!4d-83.7300186!16s%2Fg%2F1tz76tkv!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDkwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I have found that various areas in the Himalayas northwest of Nepal, as well as in Uttar Pradesh around Prayagraj, as well as in Kashmir valley, are places where I can trace some of the gotras in my family to, at least if the stories about the Saptarishis are correct.
I apologize if I misled anyone, I just realized that Iyers really are only bound by the fact they don't specifically worship a particular deity (and those associated with that deity). Iyengars are bound by the fact they have made the choice to worship one particular deity (Vishnu, and Lakshmi who is associated with him). As such, Iyers are more like general Brahmins, and a community that simply didn't want to associate with anything other than being a priest/being a Brahmin, might have eventually become an Iyer community. That means there is little that was decisive about being in one community and not the other, it was more like a way to avoid picking sides. So, someone who associates with only the Iyer identity may not even want to have associated with a group associating with one side and not the other, but instead just became associated with many of the groups not choosing a side simply because they didn't choose a side. If on top of that, a community doesn't even share the fact they are seen as associating uniquely with at least a partly North Indian identity in some way, and if they didn't mix much or at all with Vadama Iyers, then Vadama Iyers have little genuine connection to them other than that both are Hindu (majority religion in India) and both don't choose to explicitly associate their identity with a particular deity. As such, it seems as though certain non-Vadama Brahmins wanted to avoid sectarianism and thus in some ways tribalism and connect their main identity to being more of a holy person. As this may or may not be a connection that lasts when one is no longer deemed holy, and as the whole identity of an Iyer is built on the Tamil definition of Iyer which inherently relates to social status within a society, and as Iyers are bound by only their attempt to not be sectarian and to not be in a special group beyond a merely occupation based group, "Vadama" is a much more likely to be permanently important identity to associate with as Vadama Iyers are uniquely defined by their cultural/historical connections to North India. This is something that is beyond occupation, no matter if the person becomes a soldier, a son, a daughter, a mother, a laborer etc. one may still have a special cultural/historical connection to North India while still having some history of some generations living in Tamil Nadu during the last few centuries or so. If one were of Iyengar descent, one would still be able to exclusively worship Vishnu and thereby maintain that special connection to Iyengars even if the person were no longer a priest etc.. Similarly, if one were of Vadama Iyer descent, one could still maintain the unique northern connection while having some history of heritage in Tamil Nadu despite no longer being a priest etc.. But if one were to place their identity on being Iyer, then if they were no longer a priest etc. there is little way to even have a unique connection to Iyers especially when some of the other Iyer communities have little to no unique relation to this Iyer descent person. Worshipping multiple deities does not make one very uniquely tied to Iyers, as many other groups that are not Iyers also worship multiple deities (which is true of exclusively worshipping Vishnu as well, but rejecting sectarianism especially demonstrates that a group doesn't want much of a unique connection to any particular party/identity beyond the land they live in which is largely involuntary, and the occupation they have chosen, and nearly all except some scheduled tribes etc. have chosen an occupation, if one is without a pre-existing tribe and wanders into a new land, they typically pick an occupation (the most stable/high paying/least risky one if possible) in the largest society of the land just to survive there and have ease of mobility, without being in such a close-knit society that they can't have relative independence for much of the time). Essentially, if your ancestors etc. didn't want to associate with those of Vadama Iyers in any special way, or you don't have a shared ancestral environment identity (in the sense of a shared connection to North India while having some heritage in Tamil Nadu) then I don't think there is too much more in common other than vegetarianism and religion etc. at best. But many other communities in India share these features, while the ancestral regional connection is not quite the same as within the Vadama community. Ultimately, the Vadama community should avoid just blending into generic Tamil Iyers, just in part to avoid wiping out the more established ancient priestly humans of Tamil Nadu by way of competition (arising from a possible belief both are equally Tamil) or some other unforeseen event in the future. By recognizing the ancestral regional difference, there may at least be greater possibility of less competition or assimilation as long as both remain related and human.
So far, from many online searches, I have failed to find a dedicated online Iyer community that isn't solely for matrimony or isn't some personal blog of some individual person (to the extent it is questionable if even his children would associate with that. It doesn't say it is the author's family blog, it is merely a blog titled as his own).
Also, please never again advertise Iyer matrimony "girls." Girls shouldn't be marrying. Girls are not adults. Women can marry. But even then, any random person could see this stuff and if many of the Iyer women on those sites have married Iyer men, it is likely because many non-Upper Caste Indians did not spend much time on the internet until the recent few years, and because until recently, northern Eurasians/"White" people etc. largely did not know about Iyers. But I will divulge that I am the very product of a "white" non-Indian man in the 1990's stumbling on a similar online matrimony involving an Iyer woman. As such, I am ancestrally Half Iyer, half British Isles descent (raised largely in the USA).
But as I was raised Hindu with many family members speaking in the Iyer/Tambrahm dialect of Tamil (of course there are also regional dialects, but the caste-based dialect is what draws much attention), I still would like to see a space online dedicated to Iyer culture, religion, and dialect, as well as discussions of the future of the community. I would like for Iyers to one day have at least something like an indigenous land (or an indigenous land itself) where Iyer customs etc. are justified to have presence there, as many other groups have lands today such as with Koreans who have two countries (especially North Korea) where modern liberals largely do not even question that Koreans are indigenous. The Iyer community's indigeneity is questioned very often by left-wing groups, both in India, and even in Western nations etc. where Indo-European migration into India is often part of the high school curriculum etc..
I would like to have people who are invested in the growth of this online community to help mod this subreddit. If you are interested, please let me know either in a comment or DM me. I would like to see this subreddit turned into a place similar to r/tambrahm with regards to there being many posts related to culture etc.. But I also want someone else to be available to assume control of this sub if my account ever has some issue or I am simply away for a long time.
Afterall, virtually entirely unrelated people who happen to live in Tamil Nadu have converted to Brahmins as well, and they could theoretically claim to be "Tambrahms." Yet of course many (but not all) ancestral Tambrahms genuinely could not claim to be identical to the average Tamil Nadu resident in terms of ancestry proportions etc..
But also, within Tambrahms there are large ancestral ideological/theological rifts. So, it would seem important to have an identity more specific than just being a "Tambrahm."
If there were a discord server for this subreddit, there might be more regular discussions as well as some people beginning to get to know one another there.
I know that Tambrahms typically have a distinct ancestral background that includes a significant amount of North Indian ancestry typically from the upper Ganges River Valley region. So should Tambrahms or at least Iyers and Iyengars be considered different ethnicities from other Tamils? Tambrahms are typically not merely regular ancestral Tamils who just happened to become priests and form groups based on that. Is Tamil Nadu really representative of the identity of Tambrahms? Especially when it comes to coastal Tamil Nadu, do you really want to tie your identity to a land where mosquitos are persistently very active year round?
What about somewhere in between the Ganges valley and Tamil Nadu, but closer to the Ganges valley to account for high levels of endogamy among most Tambrahms? What about somewhere in northwest Jharkhand or Northern Chhattisgarh? It entertains me to imagine a Tambrahm culture associated state, perhaps a state like Jammu and Kashmir with two identities, except Iyer and Iyengar culturally influenced regions but in the northwest Jharkhand/northern Chhattisgarh region I mentioned. The Ganges river tributaries of the region would provide natural access to the Bay of Bengal.
Compare the high temperatures in the summer of Durness, UK to those of Port Ross, a harbor of the Auckland Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Islands#Climate and those of Cape Wrath on mainland Great Britain, in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wrath#Climate and note that Cape Wrath and Durness both have highs at 58 Fahrenheit (Cape Wrath has 58.3 F during its hottest month) in the hottest part of summer on average, while Port Ross has highs of 58.6 Fahrenheit during the hottest part of summer on average, which rounds to 59 F unlike Cape Wrath's 58.3 F which rounds to 58 F.
The islands are actually very similar in climate etc. to parts of Northwestern Europe, and the land area is identical to the actual island of the Isle of Man (excluding the non-permanently inhabited Calf of Man). They are larger than Malta by a lot. They are only about an hour's flight from southern Stewart Island and only about an hour and 10 minute flight from the airport at Oban, Stewart Island based on many other flights flying the same distance.
If the Auckland islands were to have a population of 425,000, they would have a population larger than Iceland and yet still have a smaller population than Malta, while also living on nearly double the land area, even if the Auckland islands weren't artificially enlarged (which is certainly possible given relatively shallow seas to the north and east of the islands, as well as the great amount of artificial extensions Singapore and the Maldives have done etc.). Singapore used to only have a land area of about 224.5 square miles, but now they have a land area of about 287.4 square miles. If, for example, disappointment island were set aside as a wildlife reserve, the Auckland islands would still have a land area of 218.8 square miles. If some uninhabited land in the South Barrule, Earystane, and Stony Mountain Plantations of the isle of Man were excluded from the land area of the isle of Man, the land area of the isle of Man would be less than the Auckland islands' remaining 218.8 square miles despite the isle of Man still having multiple other uninhabited plantations such as the Eairy Beg plantation that would still be included in its land area. So clearly it is possible even with the current land area of the Auckland islands to have a culturally unique population, perhaps even with their own language such as in Malta or the Isle of Man, while still having a significant amount of forest and farmland on the main land(s) as well as having Disappointment island be completely untouched except perhaps occasionally by supervised guided thoroughly cleaned visitors, because after all what is the use in preserving something so fragile even a mammal such as a human, being as careful as possible, causes the thing to go extinct?
The Auckland Islands are not as seismically active as some of the other sub-Antarctic islands of the region, but they are also significantly large unlike those islands. Consider that Bermuda is inhabited by over 63,000 people, a population larger than that of the Faroe islands which have their own language, despite Bermuda being about 650 miles away from any other land, and despite being less than a tenth of the land area of the Auckland islands. The Auckland islands are only 227 miles from the southernmost point of mainland Stewart Island, an island which has a significant permanent human population in Oban, Stewart island and an airport as well etc.. There are many other large islands south of New Zealand that are also being preserved for wildlife. The Auckland islands are neither the only ones to have forest, nor are they even the least touched by humans. The Snares islands are over a square mile and have a very unique forest with many Tree Daisies (tall up to 33 foot trees) and have much less history of human contamination. But in any case, there is enough room on the Auckland islands for a significant amount of the forests to still be protected while having a human population of 425,000 and also leaving Disappointment island for wildlife, even without artificial extensions. The Campbell islands may also be good to settle because not only can a tree grow there, they have the potential to have many trees because their summer high temperatures are similar to those of Djupivogur in Iceland which has trees and the winters in Campbell islands are milder. Without such settlement, naturally the Auckland islands would have no other similar climate land with a population to the south and would therefore be slightly more likely to gradually gain a more sub-tropical mainland New Zealand tied identity over time, with no naturally easy way to offset it using cultural etc. influence from somewhere colder nearby (if there were no settled land south of the Auckland Islands). The Auckland islands are the only islands in Oceania that are so far south they are entirely as distant from the equator as the real England even when excluding Cornwall and yet are temperate and have a sufficiently large land area to be similar in size to full countries with distinct languages. And they are drifting further north and eroding away as time goes on. Also, is it even very likely that no one will settle the islands at any point in the future? Even if they don't, if all of humanity were to die off, it would seem likely that whatever caused all of humanity to die off may also harm life on the Auckland islands.
As a side note, the Maoris did not arrive on the Auckland islands very early, and their first sufficiently long-term settlement (if there ever was a settlement attempt before that) occurred after Europeans had discovered the islands. In fact, they hired a "Captain Ellis" to transport them to the Auckland islands from the Chatham islands on an "English brig" see https://omniatlas.com/maps/australasia/18460217/ and https://rauropiwhakaoranga.landcareresearch.co.nz/references/6412c30c-f930-42dd-bae3-551926889236. The Maoris were fleeing further potential French prosecution (after a small scale bombardment of physical property and canoes by the French) due to some Maoris of the Chatham islands seizing and burning a French whaling ship and killing some of its European descent crew during a fight where some Maoris also were killed. But according to https://www.a-maverick.com/blog/the-museum-at-waitangi the rest of the ship's European crew also seem to have died because they were made to flee in very small boats and died at sea. The Maoris were fleeing the possibility of the chiefs involved in killing the French men and burning the whaling ship, being executed themselves. The Maoris arrived to settle the Auckland islands with slaves they acquired from what essentially was genocidal colonization and partial cannibalization of the Morioris on the Chatham islands, and they only arrived about 7 years before Europeans arrived to build the short-lived settlement of Hardwicke. And along with the European settlers, the Maoris also left the islands in the 1800's. So the Maoris are not the indigenous people of the Auckland islands, especially when most of the time humanity has been outside Africa much of Maori ancestry was in lands much closer to the equator that are tropical or sub-tropical such as Taiwan. Just because a piece of land is in some way close to the Pacific Ocean doesn't mean it is the natural domain of Asia.
