TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[TheRafael00000]

will u stop the **** word

Ok, I stop. But it was just to teach them their fanatic about Aryans! They were never a part of it. History proves it. North East India doesn't represent whole India. Never had. Never will. I'm leaving now. They will probably fire missiles now.

 

[DarkPrince]

You are a huge outlier man.



Thanks bro. I appreciate it.

Apne watan ke naak ka sawaal hai.

hows that ???

 

[vsdoc]

hows that ???

Morphologically.

 

[ishaqzaade]

i am very fair BDsi i can asure u that i am not a dalit convert. i have persian ancestry as well

but that doesnt mean i hate dalits or believe in caste system

one more south asian muslim who want wana be arab or persian .

 

[Developereo]

What is the use of digging old graves??

Because it is needed to fight the extremist Hindutva agenda that Islam has less right to be in India than the "indigenous" faiths. The following post by Rusty sums it up:

Aryans are only controversial to Indians because how can invaders be "noble"
This would negate your entire victim card and leave you wondering who you really are.
I mean you guys think you are better than the Muslims because you didn't succumb to evil foreigners......but the evidence shows that you kind of did.....

Now what? the Aryans came way back then? The Aryan theory is a funny one, constantly changing to keep up with the facts.

The only thing the genetic studies prove is that any foreign influence was not a massive physical invasion. The issue here is the Aryan cultural invasion; there is no reason why such an invasion need be accompanied by a large physical conquest. In the old days before democracy, all you had to do was to gain control of the ruling/spiritual strata and the masses would follow.

The Vedic and other influences came from areas which were foreign to the subcontinent masses at the time. Just because later empires encompassed them, centuries afterwards, somehow makes the original influence retroactively "indigenous"? By that logic, if India were to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia, would it then make Islam "indigenous" to India?

 

[ishaqzaade]

Because it is needed to fight the extremist Hindutva agenda that Islam has less right to be in India than the "indigenous" faiths. The following post by Rusty sums it up:

muslim take their right name of pakistan and bangladesh .

 

[DarkPrince]

Morphologically.

i'm not lying bro

 

[vsdoc]

A major part of Hinduism as we know it today developed and evolved in India.

Not so with Islam which was transported here lock stock and barrel.

The ones crying a river about not being accepted as part of India are usually from Pakistan.

Helps reaffirm.

 

[Iggy]

Ok, I stop. But it was just to teach them their fanatic about Aryans! They were never a part of it. History proves it. North East India doesn't represent whole India. Never had. Never will. I'm leaving now. They will probably fire missiles now.

Be afraid!! Be very very Afraid!!

 

[vsdoc]

i'm not lying bro

I did not say that.

I said you are at statistical outlier.

Not the norm.

 

[DarkPrince]

A major part of Hinduism as we know it today developed and evolved in India.

Not so with Islam which was transported here lock stock and barrel.

The ones crying a river about not being accepted as part of India are usually from Pakistan.

Helps reaffirm.

bro i am talking about south asian racism why r u bringing religion everywhere

 

[vsdoc]

bro i am talking about south asian racism why r u bringing religion everywhere

I was responding to mulla ji who deigned to post on the thread.

Aap beech mein naa tokiye.

 

[Bang Galore]

Which probably means that the Aryan waves were simply not big enough in terms of genetic load.

But big on geographical and social flux.

That's the Michael Witzel theory. It goes something like this:

according to him, the original Indic racial stock had settled down in Central Asia, and had “even before their immigration into South Asia, completely ‘Aryanised’ a local population, for example, in the highly developed Turkmenian-Bactrian area… involving both their language and culture. This is only imaginable as the result of the complete acculturation of both groups… the local Bactrians would have appeared as a typically ‘Vedic’ people with a Vedic civilization.”

These new “Vedic people” (ie. people belonging to the racial stock of the original non-Aryan inhabitants of Bactria, but with language, mythology and culture of the Indic people who had earlier migrated into Bactria from further outside) “later on… moved into the Panjab, assimilating (‘Aryanising&#8217 the local population”

By the time they reached the Subcontinent… they may have had the typical somatic characteristics of the ancient population of the Turanian/Iranian/Afghan areas, and may not have looked very different from the modem inhabitants of the Indo-Iranian Boderlands. Their genetic impact would have been negligible, and… would have been ‘lost’ in a few generations in the much larger gene pool of the Indus people. One should not, therefore, be surprised that ‘Aryan bones’ have not been found so far

"What Witzel is suggesting is that the Aryans who migrated into India were not the original Indo-aryans, but groups of people native to the areas further northwest, who were “completely Aryanised” in “language and culture”, and further that they were so few in number that “their genetic impact would have been negligible” and “would have been ‘lost’ in a few generations in the much larger gene pool of the Indus people."

The Rg veda represents a language, religion & culture that is the most archaic of the Indo-European world but we are being asked to believe that somehow, one culture has passed it on so completely to another who in turn have been absorbed into a third culture after settling down completely into their "new homeland" yet somehow manage to produce the Rg veda at a time when the other "branches" seem unable to produce anything worthwhile .

Witzel even tries to find out whether there are earlier names of rivers (i.e. non-Aryan names) since European rivers reflect languages spoken before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. Yet he is unable to find non sanskrit (or languages derived from) names for the rivers of North India. This despite the supposed stubbornness of ancient names continuing. Whereas in Europe, river names & indeed place-names represent pre-Indo-European languages spoken in Europe before 2500 BC, in Northern India place-names and river-names are Indo-European from the time of the Rg veda with no evidence of any earlier non-Indo-European names.

 

[Developereo]

A major part of Hinduism as we know it today developed and evolved in India.

Not so with Islam which was transported here lock stock and barrel.

The ones crying a river about not being accepted as part of India are usually from Pakistan.

Helps reaffirm.

You should know by now, and I have told you a couple of times, that I only respond to factual posts with substance, not vacuous blabbering.

Rusty thrashed you with facts and, when he challenged you to back your vacuous claims with specifics, you started throwing personal attacks against him, Muslims and Pakistanis in general.

I was responding to mulla ji who deigned to post on the thread.

Aap beech mein naa tokiye.

Just as you are doing again.

Better stick to your vacuous speeches and let knowledgeable people engage in discussion.

 

[vsdoc]

Bang thanks for sharing bro.

Fascinating stuff. More!

Are you a historian?

P.S. Grammar mulla, I'll give you wedgie. Control.