Search results

No

Why?

This is not empirical evidence. This is amateur drivel. Turkey itself held a huge empire for 600 years. I could just as easily excuse their wealth for colonial gain as you could European colonialism for their wealth gain. Besides, Turkey isn't all that rich. Almost all of the Arab Gulf states...

Well, if we are just speaking about language groups then it would be the Urheimat of the language group. The "Urheimat" is the origin of the language. The reason language groups are used to define races/ethnicities/pan-ethnicities (etc. etc.) that inhabited Earth during ancient times, is because...

Ok. The IVC was indigenous, but the Indo-Aryans are not related to the IVC anyway. But still, if we are going to go off of scientific consensus, is it not true that the IVC is still not confirmed as an indigenous population? If they were Proto-Indo-Iranian or Semitic than they originated from...

India could not have been better because India was in a horrible position already before British colonization. Or else how would 20,000 troops from a tiny island nation colonize a subcontinent with a population 1,000x it's size? 1. The "East" was never more powerful than the West because they...

You unleash an odor of confidence in your predictions that would only come from a man who traveled through time and saw this for yourself. Is that why they call you timetravel?

Your post was cut-off for some reason and this is the only part I got. Yes, it was an invasion, as is stated in many of the pages I referenced. Before that there was the Indus Valley Civilization, but they were destroyed by the incoming Indo-Aryans. In fact, we don't really know who the IVC...

All in-laws are +5% :)

Then you've noticed one of the most annoying things with scientific publishing... the constant and consistent contradictions inherent in early discovery. Many studies reveal no Neanderthal genes while many do. The consensus today (despite the occasional contradictory finding) is that all...

The word Aryan is not used in scientific circles. It's only used in the word "Indo-Aryan". I'm not sure why you are centering your argument on the use of the term "Aryan", but it's wholly irrelevant to the topic. ANI has a lot of Caucasoid influence (originating from the Eastern European PIE...

I will point this out again. The great majority of historians, archaeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and linguists agree with me. Virtually no one other than self-proclaimed Hindu nationalists agrees with you. Kindly move away from the ad hominem excuses that you use to avoid...

I'm referring to how your ancestors are irrelevant to the discussion. Telling me that it's the same for my ancestors doesn't change the fact that historians, archaeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, linguists all agree with me. What is the relevance of referring to my ancestors? LOL

India was primarily Dravidian; the Indo-Aryans descended from Central Asia to colonize the subcontinent. They came from Eastern Europe and were White. Kurgan hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia, the...

Without British colonization the Indians would still be in the midst of proto-history.

No one edited anything you moron. I said The Americas slumdog. You can clearly see the "Last Edited" sign and time of date below each comment in the bottom-right section of the comment, making you even more of a fool than you have already been made to be. All one has to do is look at the...

Your ancestors are not historians or archaeologists or geneticists or anthropologists or linguists . Your ancestors are irrelevant to the discussion.

Weren't we supposed to see in 2005, and 2010, and 2012 or 2015? Yes, we will see in 2020 if you test that theory out.

Anyone who has spent more than a few days in America knows the statistics are complete BS and cannot be compared across nations. If 1 in 5 women in the US have been raped then chances are that someone in every single family has been raped. Ridiculous.

Of course it's a bunch of bull that is not taken seriously by any modern academic. Why don't Europeans look like Dravidians? Why is there a sense of continuity in the subcontinent, from lighter-skinned more Caucasoid appearance Northern Indians, and more Australoid looking darker-skinned...