The Strategy which is still effectively working even after two hundred years

[Indischer]

More than the theory, it is the intention behind the theory we should be wary of.

What was the intention here?

 

[American_Millenium]

What was the intention here?

Let me guess:

White racism and a desperation to claim ancient cultures which seemingly 'don't belong' to us??

 

[Indischer]

You're the one that seems confused.

The distinction between invasion and peaceful cultural diffusion was largely irrelevant to the main point I was making.

Whether they went peacefully or not doesn't change the fact that they did in fact go. From now on I'll use the term "Indo-Aryan migration" instead of invasion if it makes you feel any better, but it doesn't change the fact that the genetic evidence indicates an invasion.

LOL. Genetic evidence only indicates intermingling of genes. Or have they found sword-stab wounds, arrow-impalements and spear-stab injuries inside the genes of Indians to justify it being labeled as evidence of invasion?

Let me guess:

White racism and a desperation to claim ancient cultures which seemingly 'don't belong' to us??

Well, depends on what you want to claim as 'belonging to you'.

 

[Chronos]

Let me guess:

White racism and a desperation to claim ancient cultures which seemingly 'don't belong' to us??

No.

it's the same with it was all hunky dory before the Msulims came to India.

While the discussion of these theories serve as entertainment among the privileged chatter classes.

In the figures of an semi educated populist it can be used in many ways.

While history is good to learn lessons from, what matters more is the India now.

What we need are practical solutions to India's problems with economy, sexual violence etc.

Don't give a flying hoot to these theories. If it doesn't make the peoples lives better, doesn't make indians more integrated, more forward thinking, then it is of no use to me.

Besides, Southern India is more developed than Northern India. So it would seem there isn't much of a racial superiority to begin with.

Hey, but since you brought it up without me mentioning it, I actually know about your motivations.

You're the one that seems confused.

The distinction between invasion and peaceful cultural diffusion was largely irrelevant to the main point I was making.

Whether they went peacefully or not doesn't change the fact that they did in fact go. From now on I'll use the term "Indo-Aryan migration" instead of invasion if it makes you feel any better, but it doesn't change the fact that the genetic evidence indicates an invasion.

again, this has no relevance whatsoever to Modern India.

if it makes you feel any better, you can all it the Aryan Invasion.

doesn't change the fact that it is now utterly useless to Indians as the races have so mixed together, no can can claim to be a pure Aryan.

 

[scorpionx]

Let me guess:

White racism and a desperation to claim ancient cultures which seemingly 'don't belong' to us??

Well, if you are talking about the out of India theory and it's proponents who were predominantly Hindu nationalist, let me tell you this theory had long been debunked by another set of Hindu nationalists themselves. Yes, we do had affinities with the Mittannis and the Kassaites, but it does not necessarily prove that they were aryanized by Indians.

 

[Chronos]

Well, if you are talking about the out of India theory and it's proponents who were predominantly Hindu nationalist, let me tell you this theory had long been debunked by another set of Hindu nationalists themselves. Yes, we do had affinities with the Mittannis and the Kassaites, but it does not necessarily prove that they were aryanized by Indians.

I was going to say that he intends to cause divisions among Indians, you know India is a modern invention by the british and my standard rebuttal of 'who cares, the present is what matters argument' even though at this juncture in time, Indians have mixed together to the extent the theory hold no water at this point.

Except for historical discussions.

But it was kind enough of him to reveal his true motivations.

 

[Indischer]

@scorpionx Just an addition to the Mittanni evidence. It's believed that the ruling elite indeed somehow were Indo-Aryans with Indic roots, as the word for One-Aika, was used instead of Aiva(as used by Iranic Aryans) in a Mittanni manuscript.

 

[AUz]

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 are wealthier, and Turkey itself is poorer than literally every single Western European nation.

I said Turkey is relatively better off than other surrounding nations who got colonized. Secondly, only an idiot will make a point that colonization was a 'good' thing for the natives.

Before colonization, india was one of the richest country of the world...after colonization, it become one of poorest.

. Virtually all non-Western countries are poor, regardless as to whether they were or were not colonized.

Yeah and at one point of history, virtually all non-western states/powers were more powerful and wealthier than 'west'...so what? These are patterns of history that keep on changing.

Let me give you a hint: Ending all of your statements with this repetitive accusation only makes you look desperate, unassertive, and overly self-conscious. It does nothing to me or my character.

lol! "unassertive"? What does that suppose to mean. Secondly, I just stated a fact because you, being an insecure westerner, are refusing to accept solid realities.

Historically, far, far, more superpowers/dominant civilizations arose from East than West.

West itself is an extension of civilizations that arose in Middle-East...

Most of these so-called superpowers rarely entered Europe, and when they did they were summarily kicked out.

LOL...Rome did not entered East Asia either..not even South Asia...so what? Just because a super power did not enter W.Europe (which was a shithole back then), it means that they are not superpowers? You know how stupid you sound?

Ming Empire was the superpower of her era..it sent massive naval fleets as far as Africa, Yemen etc. Its economy was largest in the world at that time..but since it didn't reach all the way to shitholes of W.Europe..it is now not a superpower? LOL!

As I said, superpowers are measured relative to the era of their existence. As time progressed..superpowers become more "integrated" to the world system since world got closer and closer due to better technologies, enhance shipping, and hunt for resources etc. But it doesn't mean that a power like Rome or Ottoman Empire can't be superpowers because they did not had satellites in space. DUH.

Today, Pakistan has more global reach than Rome ever had...does it mean Pakistan is a "superior" historical power than rome? What a joke.

Again, as I said, from start of history to 18th century, East produced way, way more superpowers/dominant civilizations than West...

West: Greece, Rome.

East: Egypt (longest state in human history 3000 years straight!), Persia, India, China, Turks, Islamic World ....to just name a few.

Again, facts are facts. If I was wrong, you would've pointed me out by now. But you did not. Since you can not.

It is indeed funny though, to notice how these "superpowers" pictured themselves (in the past) and how they clearly look when displayed through REAL pictures today. Have you seen pictures of the Ottoman Royal Family?

File:Ayşe-Gülnev-Osmanoğlu-Issue.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats your point? Why does it matter how Turks looked?

The West always existed in the minds of Western peoples. Sharing a common ancestry, history, religion, and a common language group will do that to you.

LOL...Greeks and Romans regarding Germanic tribes (majority of Europe) as "barbarian savages" and not "civilized people"....Greece saw "Persians" as more civilized and a worthy opponents than "barbarians" of Europe..which were majority of so called "Europa"

Like I said, insignificant compared to what we have given to you.

LOL...again, you make statements out of your *** with no regards to historical facts.

I can make a statement like "Newton? Oh he's irrelevant...I am a better physicist than him" ..You see, making statements is easy...but you can't deny facts.

Entire existence of modern "west" is due to Islamic Civilization's influence over it through centuries.

Heck, the very basis of West's modern existence...secularism...was an influence of Islamic Scholar. Europe used to be a shithole under christianity (church)..and Church tried EVERYTHING to stop Islamic Civilization's influence from changing European identity..but they failed. Islamic Scholars' and their work inspired what later came to be known as "European Secularism" and the church of christianity crumbled infront of Islamic Civilization's influence. Europe, its identity, its culture, and its worldview was transformed permanently by Islamic Civilization's influence.

Can you say the same for West when it comes to Islamic World? Not at all

I could mention everything that surrounds you right now but I won't as the list will take too long.

Again, you are acting like a 'child'. "Things" don't matter. "Behaviors" do. "Ideas" do. "Ideologies" do. "Systems" do. In the grand scheme of things...till now..it is Islam that transformed west and not the other way around. I've already shown you proofs.

Tell me, I use a "West-made" computer (actually China made but lets continue lol)...how does it effect me? My identity? my culture? My behavior? My worldview? Muslims around the world use computers...same questions..does it make any difference?

On the contrary, many Muslims have used Western technology to enhance Islamic reach to the world

On the other hand...entire basis of modern western existence, identity, culture, worldview...secularism...comes from Islamic World. Do you realize the difference here?

I bet you haven't read a book on the subject being discussed...Here, get educated...your own scholars on the subject..

The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization: Jonathan Lyons: 9781608190584: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Science-European-Renaissance-Transformations/dp/0262516152

You wouldn't be living here if you didn't think we are so much greater than your people.

LMAO! I have lived in KSA...U.S...and other countries too. Does that mean that I think "Oh man..Saudis are so much greater than us blah blah" ...

Ask any immigrant if he thinks Americans to be "greater" people than its own peoples..he'll laugh at you.

We immigrants out perform you at your own turf...tells me alot who is "greater" here.

While KSA, I met many American immigrants who lived there for work etc...probably they think Saudis to be great too? LOL!

Immigration is a global phenomenon...

Which one of the many geniuses was he?

Google what I told you. You'll know.

Don't you find it interesting that the very words "The founding father of modern European secular thought" gives only his name? And that church had to ban his works and include 'cursing on him' as a part of religious services all across Europe? YET his works and his influence destroyed Europe's "indigenous" worldview (Church organizing society) and transformed Europe into what it is today?
Show me just "one" such influence that West was able to put on Islamosphere...NOTHING. Nothing even come close! But I know..you'll say "But Muslims use mercedes..which is ours..so we have more influence" What a pity.

The convenience COMES from the influence. Why would English be so convenient as an international and world language, if not for it's dominance and influence in world culture?

Yes. right now, English is convenient because most dominant economic powers are western one's. I agree.

It's true that you stick with your religion through thick and thin, but the fact that you are migrating en masse to our countries is proof enough that you're willing to engage in the self-destruct of a massive portion of your culture and history just to live the way we live.

LOL..'self-destruct'? How so buddy? If anything, Muslims are spreading Islamic Civilization in the heartland of Europe. Today, there are thousands of mosques in Europe...50 million+ Muslims live in Western heartlands...how is it "self-destruction"?

Islam is not christianity. Islam is a total civilizational force in itself...and that civilizational force has now entered in the heart of Europe and West, Mashallah. You can "feel" its presence..through food (halal food), architecture (Mosques), behavior, its own law (personal laws, divorce, family, hygiene laws etc) and even dress code (Girls in Hijabs are common site in Western universities now). It all shows you the arrival of another civilizational force in the midst of West.

Look at the opposite way...how many million christians were added in Islamic World in last century (not through birth rate)..what "extension" did christianity got in Islamic World? Nothing! You won't see girls wearing crosses in university campuses throughout Muslim world..

Not to mention the conversions of hundreds of thousands of westerners that have happen to Islam right in the midst of West. Yet Muslims are on "self-destruction" mode?

Religion is the one exception for Muslims; everything else that does not directly contradict the Quran is fair play.

Exactly! And thats what I've been telling you all along. Islamosphere didn't get "westernized"...heck, even many Muslims living in west didn't...West could not influence the 'behavior' of us..nor our 'worldview'...nor our ideology....

But oh well, we use computer so its all good for you

More westerners drink coffee than Muslims using computer...and coffee came to Europe from Islamic World.... but it is a stupid point to make as I said, "things" don't matter in grand scheme of history

None of these were superpowers in the modern sense, and none of them exerted influence over Western Europe. FACT.

What do you mean by "modern" sense? Dude, modern sense can be applied to "modern" powers (like U.S etc)...you judge powers of past from the perspective of their era of existence. Are you THAT dumb? If this is the case, then even Roman empire was a shit-hole by 'modern' standards ...but then again, that would be a stupid thing to say. Rome was a superpower of its era..just like all others I've mentioned.

and those that DID exert influence on (what-were-at-the-time) irrelevant parts of Eastern and Southern Europe were overwhelmingly European in appearance.... I just find that quite interesting!

LOL..that line alone tells how childish, and pathetic your knowledge is.

Ottoman Empire didn't control "irrelevant" parts of Europe. It conquered THE most important parts of europe and christendom. Constantinople was the "core" of western civilization at that time..it was the "Mecca" of christendom at the time...yet Ottoman Empire crushed it! and STILL "Istanbul" is in Turkish hands after 500+ years...

London, and all other "western europe" become prosperous later.

India will remain in "developing" stage, as she has for all of her history. That market of a billion is as impressive as the market of a billion sub-Saharan Africans. Wow, you can pop out a lot of kids.... impressive.

india is one state...africa isn't....

PS, comparing india with africa is not a right analogy...but whatever floats your boat.

I agree, and yet this meant nothing, just like India's tiny and insignificant GDP would mean nothing if it was suddenly tripled tomorrow. European's who numbered in the thousands conquered a people numbering in the hundreds of millions. No matter what excuse you can create out of thin air to justify this ***-kicking, it will always look as stunning as the simple comparison of numbers I gave in the preceding sentence above.

Again, you have no knowledge of the subject and you are making a fool outa yourself.

British never "conquered" india..british colonialism was not a "military" colonialism...rather a "co-operate" colonialism where brits controlled trade of india after india had collapsed internally due to civil war, infighting etc.

Most of british army itself was indian...because as I said..it wasn't a colonial military project..but rather economic control of production and trade in india.

but yes, british military tech was superior to that of indians' at that time..but the factual case is that india didn't go through military conquest by british...

Coming to "***-kicking part" ...Do you know that Egypt, Turkey, Anatolia, Levant, Northern Middle-East, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco were all christian-european regions? They were part of Europe? Guess what? certain Islamic armies "erased" european culture and christianity permanently from these lands comprising of TENS OF MILLIONS of sq. km!!! Those armies were smaller in size and lacked technology of Byzantine empire ...

This is what is called "***-kicking"....PERMANENT "eradication" of western culture, religion, control etc.

European colonialism in Islamic World didn't last even 200 years...while Muslim colonialism lasted 800 years in Spain alone..500 years in Europe...and that is..those areas where Islamic civilization had 'mercy' on Europe and didn't eradicate their culture and way of life all together

Anyways, such talks are childish...only idiots would compare things like that..you brought it up..so I responded...Mongols had better tech and capability..they kicked everyone's ***...when Arabs and Turks had that edge..they did the same..now West has did edge for like 300 years..they are doing the same in the era of global village world

 

[scorpionx]

@scorpionx Just an addition to the Mittanni evidence. It's believed that the ruling elite indeed somehow were Indo-Aryans with Indic roots, as the word for One-Aika, was used instead of Aiva(as used by Iranic Aryans) in a Mittanni manuscript.

The Mittannis in the upper Euphrates and their names certainly have acute similarities with early vedic people and the Iranians. For example Abiratta (Indian Abhiratha), Artassumara (Indian Ritasmara), Subandu (Indian Subandhu) proves that they had close ties with the early habitats of Indo-Aryans. But it is difficult to say who influenced whom.

I was going to say that he intends to cause divisions among Indians, you know India is a modern invention by the british and my standard rebuttal of 'who cares, the present is what matters argument' even though at this juncture in time, Indians have mixed together to the extent the theory hold no water at this point.

Except for historical discussions.

But it was kind enough of him to reveal his true motivations.

Well, if the intention is to prove that the Aryans brought civilization to India, that can also be debunked with archaeological and historical evidences.

 

[Indischer]

The Mittannis in the upper Euphrates and their names were certainly have acute similarities with early vedic people and the Iranians. For example Abiratta (Indian Abhiratha), Artassumara (Indian Ritasmara), Subandu (Indian Subandhu) proves that they had close ties with the early habitats with Indo-Aryans. But it is difficult to say who influenced whom.

The reference to Aika instead of Aiva is significant as it proves beyond doubt that the Iranic-Aryan number system had been bypassed for a Indic number system. The names of Iranic and Indic Aryan tribes were similar for a long time even after the Mittanni empire ended.

 

[INDIC]

The reference to Aika instead of Aiva is significant as it proves beyond doubt that the Iranic-Aryan number system had been bypassed for a Indic number system. The names of Iranic and Indic Aryan tribes were similar for a long time even after the Mittanni empire ended.

Genetic mapping around the world shows extremely high frequency of R1a around Kurdistan.

 

[Indischer]

Genetic mapping around the world shows extremely high frequency of R1a around Kurdistan.

But how is this relevant to Mittanni?

 

[INDIC]

But how is this relevant to Mittanni?

The Mittanni Empire was founded in region around Kurdistan.

 

[scorpionx]

The reference to Aika instead of Aiva is significant as it proves beyond doubt that the Iranic-Aryan number system had been bypassed for a Indic number system. The names of Iranic and Indic Aryan tribes were similar for a long time even after the Mittanni empire ended.

Reaching to an absolute conclusion that too based on philological evidences carrying certain primitive words like the number system has been proved to be erratic. As the population moved in different directions from a supposed centralized location be it the Southern Russia or the Central Asian steppe, the words and phonetics are bound to change. And no possible answer can not be found based on these evidences.

 

[INDIC]

Lots of self proclaimed Indologists floating around these days. By the way, this is perhaps 100th thread on a fake letter!!

Google genetics.

The so called Aryan invasion theory itself has lot many grey areas and manipulated theories. I don't know what these indologist had in their mind when they referred Dravidian as a Southern race. Dravida which is called Dramila is Pali language was one of the many many tribes in South India and didn't refer to entire South Indian tribes as there were other ancient tribes in South like Andhra, Kerala, Tulunga etc.