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

[scorpionx]

The so called Aryan invasion theory itself has lot many grey areas and manipulated theories. I don't what these indologist had in their mind when they referred Dravidian as a Southern race. Dravida which is called Dramila is Pali 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, Konkana, Tulunga etc.

That's a school boyish mistakes these so called researchers are doing,confusing race with languages all over the thread.

 

[Arya Desa]

The firangi grandpa asks why the East did not invade the west. The answer is really quite simple, europe is a resourceless land. It has no value in owning it, that is why the euros spread across the world.

 

[faithfulguy]

And yet, that theory has been debunked.

Or the racial admixture is such that the theory becomes irrelevant in modern Indian context.

Just as you keep harping on about the British creation of India, the Aryan Invasion theory and your promulgation of it says more about you than it actually presents factual history. It's pretty much a narrative that you have used and abused.

Do try to improve your trolling skills.

The teaching of Aryan invasion is part of world history curriculum here in the US. So all HS students study that during their HS years. I'm not trying to troll or make things up, just share what we learn in American schools.

Only in India is Aryan invasion questioned. Its because Indians cannot accept that its own religion and background originated outside of Indian subcontinent. So Indians like you already make up your mind on what you want your history to be and than come up with arguments instead of looking at facts and draw a conclusion base on the presented facts.

 

[Chronos]

The teaching of Aryan invasion is part of world history curriculum here in the US. So all HS students study that during their HS years. I'm not trying to troll or make things up, just share what we learn in American schools.

Only in India is Aryan invasion questioned. Its because Indians cannot accept that its own religion and background originated outside of Indian subcontinent. So Indians like you already make up your mind on what you want your history to be and than come up with arguments instead of looking at facts and draw a conclusion base on the presented facts.

Nice try mate. I am an Atheist, so to me, it does not even matter a lick if Hinduism is indigenous or foreign, I don't consider myself to be one.

I am concerned with India's attitudes to Women, economic growth and the spread of that growth more equitably.

You can argue the Aryan invasion theory till the cows come home, makes no difference to me.

Oh please, you not trolling? only an idiot would believe that excuse. Or are you some sort of spam bot spamming the same comment 'India is a British invention' everywhere you go? Even in topics that have nothing to do with colonization.

As I said, be less subtle with your trolling next time.

 

[INDIC]

The teaching of Aryan invasion is part of world history curriculum here in the US. So all HS students study that during their HS years. I'm not trying to troll or make things up, just share what we learn in American schools.

Stop amusing us with your lies Taiwanese. Once I talked to guy from Texas, he told me they aren't taught anything about India in American schools except Gandhi.

Only in India is Aryan invasion questioned. Its because Indians cannot accept that its own religion and background originated outside of Indian subcontinent. So Indians like you already make up your mind on what you want your history to be and than come up with arguments instead of looking at facts and draw a conclusion base on the presented facts.

Prove that Hinduism and Sanskrit language originated outside of India. Please spare us from the crap of linguistic similarity, so you made that conclusion.

 

[faithfulguy]

Stop amusing us with your lies Taiwanese. Once I talked to guy from Texas, he told me they aren't taught anything about India in American schools except Gandhi.



Prove that Hinduism and Sanskrit language originated outside of India. Please spare us from the crap of linguistic similarity, so you made that conclusion.

Not all kids pay attention while in HS. I am into history so I remembered most of what I learned about Aryan invasion. This is what they teach here so if you don't like it, write a letter or something.

The Indo European language from India originate outside of India as it share lot of roots with Persian. And all the Indo-European language inside India are more similar to one another than to other Indo-European languages outside of India. From this, the linguist and deduct that the Indo-Aryan language, which is a branch of Indo-Iranian part of Indo-European language family, spread into India.

Read up on Indo-Aryan language here

Indo-Aryan languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up on Vedic Sanskrit and how its related to oldest preserved Iranian language

Vedic Sanskrit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origin of the Indo European language is believe to be at where Iran intersects the Caucasus today. That would be where your ancestors came from.

 

[INDIC]

Not all kids pay attention while in HS. I am into history so I remembered most of what I learned about Aryan invasion. This is what they teach here so if you don't like it, write a letter or something.

The Indo European language from India originate outside of India as it share lot of roots with Persian. And all the Indo-European language inside India are more similar to one another than to other Indo-European languages outside of India. From this, the linguist and deduct that the Indo-Aryan language, which is a branch of Indo-Iranian part of Indo-European language family, spread into India.

Read up on Indo-Aryan language here

Indo-Aryan languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up on Vedic Sanskrit and how its related to oldest preserved Iranian language

Vedic Sanskrit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origin of the Indo European language is believe to be at where Iran intersects the Caucasus today. That would be where your ancestors came from.

But you said you grew up in Taiwan, how you studied both of it.

Even with similar word Vedic Sanskrit is very different from the earliest Iranian, so did you find any manuscript that that prove Hinduism and vedic Sanskrit originated out of India. Please spare me from the linguistic similarity to prove your crap theory.

 

[American_Millenium]

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?

Since when is direct evidence the only kind? There is no such thing as a time travel machine. Deal with it.

As was stated:

This finding alone does not rule out the possibility of an elitist and/or male-predominant Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent as in fact the patterns of historical conquest and migration are ultimately reflected in terms of sex-biased admixture, with the mitochondrial heritage being more stable and of more local origin and the Y-chromosomal heritage reflecting an external influence upon the population genetic structure, as can be seen in not only such regions as South Asia, but also in such regions as Northeastern Africa (Semitic Y chromosomes vs. Niger-Kordofanian mtDNA) and Latin America (Iberian Y chromosomes vs. Amerindian mtDNA). Furthermore, the majority of researchers have found significant evidence in support of Indo-European migration and even "elite dominance" of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, usually pointing to three separate lines of evidence:

• the previously widespread distribution of Dravidian speakers, now confined to the south of India;
• the fact that upper caste Brahmins share a close genetic affinity with West Eurasians, whereas low caste Indians tend to have more in common with aboriginals or East Asians;
• and the comparatively recent introgression of West Eurasian DNA into the aboriginal population of the post-Neolithic Indo-Gangetic plain.

It seems that you ask for sources then don't even bother to read any of them. So what's the point of this useless exercise?

again, this has no relevance whatsoever to Modern India.

I never made any reference to modern India. I made the initial statements everyone begun responding to and I made no mention whatsoever of "modern India". You're the one off-topic, not me.

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.

You're right; they weren't Aryanized by Indians; they were Aryanized by the same Eastern Europeans who Aryanized the Indians.

 

[American_Millenium]

That's a school boyish mistakes these so called researchers are doing,confusing race with languages all over the thread.

Actually, the school boyish mistake is doing what you're doing. Every 5-year old knows that language and race are not the same thing; it takes a person with minimal knowledge in linguistics to know that languages originate within specific ethnicities/races/whatever-you-wanna-call-it.

That is why certain language groups (Celtic, Germanic, Italic, etc. etc.) hold many distinct genetic markers that are not present in other peoples' who speak different languages. This has largely been the rule for most of Human history, not the exception. The exception to the rule comes with the last 400 years or so, when Europeans spread their languages all over the world but did so without permanent habitation in the territories that their languages became spoken in.

 

[scorpionx]

Actually, the school boyish mistake is doing what you're doing. Every 5-year old knows that language and race are not the same thing; it takes a person with minimal knowledge in linguistics to know that languages originate within specific ethnicities/races/whatever-you-wanna-call-it.

That is why certain language groups (Celtic, Germanic, Italic, etc. etc.) hold many distinct genetic markers that are not present in other peoples' who speak different languages. This has largely been the rule for most of Human history, not the exception. The exception to the rule comes with the last 400 years or so, when Europeans spread their languages all over the world but did so without permanent habitation in the territories that their languages became spoken in.

Please be specific. What's exactly your point?

 

[INDIC]

@faithfulguy I heard Southern Hans preferred to call themselves as Tang people instead of Han people because it was only around10th century that Southern Hans were Siniticized by Tang.

That's a school boyish mistakes these so called researchers are doing,confusing race with languages all over the thread.

Vedic Sanskrit has completely unique phonology alien to even Iranian languages and which has remained almost unaltered for last 3500 years. I don't know how come some even make dumb analysis that Sanskrit came from outside some crappy theory based on linguistic similarity. Did you ancient Iranian used to pronounce Gandhara as Gandara, only an Indian will understand what I mean.

 

[American_Millenium]

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.

Turkey is also worse off than Western European countries; Turkey is also a country with a 600 year old empire that was only disestablished 90 years ago... why are they not all the richer for it?; none of this lends any credence to your BS theories.

Colonization resulted in very few benefits for the colonials, who had to spend significant amounts raising armies and fighting useless wars over countries worth nothing to the world at large. That is why there was no financial or fiscal crisis with the massive decolonization movement of 1950-1980. Hell, Britain got rid of it's empire BECAUSE of the financial drain on the homeland, not in spite of it. This is well-documented so that idiots like yourself don't have to spend too much time researching it. And yes, the colonized got more than they had before-hand. India with railroads was better than without; India with post offices was better than without.

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

Haha... I'll state this again:

India could not have been that rich because India was colonized by 20,000 troops from a tiny island nation. They did not prove themselves to be anything but tribal, as has been attested many times by British colonialists.

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

Except, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, you can't find examples that measure up to the bullshit you're saying. No, there was never a time when Western countries were so much poorer or less powerful than non-Western civilizations (funny how we have to divide them into these two groups, "us" vs. "the rest" just to give you a fighting chance) that you can actually say so without an exceptional doubt.

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.

Often I find that, with 3rd world peoples, there is no such thing as discussion; they just repeat the same thing over and over and over again, even after that point has been attacked repeatedly.

So again:

1. The "East" was never more powerful than the West because they never exerted power over us in the way we do them. The West is so powerful that we are routinely conspiracized as controlling the entire world through military and political force, even when there is no evidence for this.

2. There is no coherent "Eastern" entity like there is a Western entity. Japanese Shintos hate Chinese atheists hate Indian Hindus hate Pakistani Muslims etc. etc. You get the point. The constant wars fought in the 3rd world and the constant factions created based upon common religions, traditions, histories, and ethnicities are common enough to make it easy to understand that there is no "East".

3. The East Asian Mongols and Turks were the only groups to repeatedly enter into Eastern Europe. Other than them, as well as the predominantly European-looking Ottoman and Umayyad royalty, there was next to no influence exerted by foreign populations. AND, in addition to all that, the Mongols, Turks, Umayyads and Ottomans, were all kicked out of Europe anyway.

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

Uh-oh, here we go again, beginning the descent into the slow devolution of your animalistic behaviour.

Try and focus. Rome was not just an empire that conquered surrounding ethnically similar populations (like most 3rd world empires); no, Rome extended it's reach as far as the entirety of ancient North Africa and the Middle East. Your understanding of history is pathetic.

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!

No, the Ming Empire was not a superpower. LOL!

As I said, superpowers are measured relative to the era of their existence

And like I said, no, they are not. No one cares about your personal judgements; they hold no merit. Superpowers have always been defined as nations or empires that have an extensive global reach.

Superpower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Utter bullshit. Pakistani's global reach is insignificant next to the Roman Empire. The Pakistanis simple rebelled from India. Who did they conquer? The Romans emerged from a tiny village and conquered all of the civilized world save the Parthians and Han.

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

I've pointed out how wrong you are in every rebuttal I've posted, but since you are a typical functional illiterate from the 3rd world you tend to read over things repeatedly.

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

Of course it does; my argument is predicated not just on culture, but racial and ethnic origins. If they were White it adds more comfort to my eyes...

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"

This is getting boring... once again:

Since the time of Herodotus and Anaximander in Ancient Greece, there was ALWAYS a clear delineation between Europa and the foreigners (located southeast of Greece, east of the Ural Mountains, and south of the Caucasus).

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

The only thing that comes out of my *** is stuff that looks like you. Out of my mouth come indisputable facts; yes, everything from the air conditioner to the laptop to the English language to the automobile to the airplane to the internet to friggin' electricity was invented by us. You know it, and I know it. There is no point arguing this any further because I KNOW that you know this. And that, my friend, fills me with joy.

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

Maybe you should use your own medicine: 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.

Dumbass.

Europe, its identity, its culture, and its worldview wastransformed permanently by Islamic Civilization's influence.

More turd-world desperation and ignorance.

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

Sure you do; most of all at suicide bombings and screaming that you are as much American as I am. Why do you get so riled up when we refuse to accept you? Clearly you're just aching for attention.

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...

The Whites in Saudi are, trust me, there either as embassy personnel or to utilize the knowledge we have to extract your oil for you. And before that oil was extracted by us you barely knew of it's existence and knew nothing about it's usefulness. And how many are there anyway? A couple thousand expats at most? LOL

And we both know that immigration is almost a one-sided phenomenon. Turd-wordlers desperately flooding Europe and the US and Australia, even at risk of death and drowning. You never see us doing that.

Don't you find it interesting that the very words "The founding father of modern European secular thought.

HAHAHA, you mean THIS GUY??

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/AverroesColor.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ndPorphyry.JPG/1024px-AverroesAndPorphyry.JPG

Can you please tell me why they always end up looking really really White? Maybe because they WERE? You don't see many pale-skinned blonde/brown-haired Arabs in the Middle East. The dude was White, so yet another great man you can chalk down to us.

It all shows you the arrival of another civilizational force in the midst of West

This all happened at the invitation of our leaders and liberal minded folk, NOT because of your intellect or your dominance in any affairs. You got lucky that you were so poor, destitute, and stupid, that many of my fellow countrymen and women fell for your droopy eyes. They felt SORRY for you, and you're proud of it. LOL!

It will all be coming to an end soon enough I think... at least if this forceful Islam that is being propagated continues. Even if Muslims make up 90% of one of our countries, we remaining non-Muslim Europeans will always be able to outwit and defeat you.

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...

You talk a lot of shit for someone so inept and incompetent. The Ottomans conquered the Byzantines at their lowest point in history. Constantinople was already sacked two centuries before (during the Crusades) and had largely become a ruinous city. The Balkans were almost never the most important part of Europe; only during the times of Ancient Greece was that region of such a significance.

AGAIN though, it doesn't even matter. The Ottomans, or at the very least their leaders, would have fit in within Sweden just fine! LOL! So for me, it's a win-win!!

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

It absolutely is. You were referring to a billion people as if the larger the better, and I referred to the billion Africans who are apparently on their way to superpower status as well. After all they are almost as big, and going to be much much bigger in the future.

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.

Oh man, will the desperation EVER end?

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 ...

Christianity isn't a race; it's not something that automatically bonds me with someone else. There are plenty of Black Africans who are Christian. Please, take them as well. You can have them along with all of the 3rd worlders that were conquered for you by Whites like the Ottomans. It seems the only way this culture can spread is through short bursts by White leaders (which probably bring with them large White populations to do all the hard work).

I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to find out about the distinctly White appearances of many significant/famous people in what is supposedly your history!

when Arabs and Turks had that edge..they did the same

Again, it's funny that they looked so European. Clearly they are not the same as modern day populations. I would consider anyone who is White my own kin, so you're attempting to use these people against me holds no validity in my eyes. I have more in common with a White person who speaks Turkish or Arabic than I do a Pakistani "American" who speaks English.

Please be specific. What's exactly your point?

The point is that you made a school boyish mistake yourself.

 

[Indischer]

The Mittanni Empire was founded in region around Kurdistan.

But it isn't surprising as the region has had Iranic people for at 5000 years now. But can an inference on Mittanni's elite be framed from today's genetic evidence? I don't think so.

 

[Indischer]

Since when is direct evidence the only kind? There is no such thing as a time travel machine. Deal with it.

As was stated:

This finding alone does not rule out the possibility of an elitist and/or male-predominant Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent as in fact the patterns of historical conquest and migration are ultimately reflected in terms of sex-biased admixture, with the mitochondrial heritage being more stable and of more local origin and the Y-chromosomal heritage reflecting an external influence upon the population genetic structure, as can be seen in not only such regions as South Asia, but also in such regions as Northeastern Africa (Semitic Y chromosomes vs. Niger-Kordofanian mtDNA) and Latin America (Iberian Y chromosomes vs. Amerindian mtDNA). Furthermore, the majority of researchers have found significant evidence in support of Indo-European migration and even "elite dominance" of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, usually pointing to three separate lines of evidence:

• the previously widespread distribution of Dravidian speakers, now confined to the south of India;
• the fact that upper caste Brahmins share a close genetic affinity with West Eurasians, whereas low caste Indians tend to have more in common with aboriginals or East Asians;
• and the comparatively recent introgression of West Eurasian DNA into the aboriginal population of the post-Neolithic Indo-Gangetic plain.

It seems that you ask for sources then don't even bother to read any of them. So what's the point of this useless exercise?

1. The speakers of Dravidian languages are not confined just to South India.
2. One of the biggest white-lies peddled in the name of science. Even the lower castes of Southern India share more genetic affinity with Eurasians than Upper castes from South India.
3. This was known for a long time. Nobody's saying these so-called Aryan groups are as old as our Australoid population.

Your evidence in support of Aryan Invasion is trashy. Now deal with that.

 

[scorpionx]

The point is that you made a school boyish mistake yourself.

Continue then. Your assumption does not worth discussing.