dec 6th
san,
since you have mentioned a couple of times that you believe in this much-discredited theory, will you post your reasons why you believe in it?
as you might know, the reason for the creation of this mythology in the first place was to find a rationale for white christist people (british) to conquer territory and find a moral justification for it: "see, this has been done before by the aryans who were our white ancestors. so we're just taking over what is ours anyway". this is the christist version of the mohammedan or chinese vanity: "at some time in the past, some local king of yours paid us mohammedans or chinese tribute, therefore your territory is ours for all time." it was an excuse for land-grab and imperialism.
also, at the time, whites were successfully wiping out non-white natives all over the place, so they thought that was the way the world had always worked.
but today all these reasons are null and void. the facts are against 'aryan' invasion (which is why the true believers have now started weasel-wording it to 'migration'. soon they will be talking about 'aryan' 'tourism', i predict).
1. the weight of genetic evidence is now accumulating that instead of an in-migration into india, it was an out-migration from india, and that too long ago. see the discussions based on oppenheimer's and macaulay's work (note the delicious irony in the latter's name!):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1116180255-HCwNSux1xetEdoSaH/eLpA&pagewanted=print
2. acceptance of 'aryan' anything essentially requires you to suspend your disbelief about the following scenario: a bunch of war-like barbarians with no written history "thundered over the Khyber pass in their horse-drawn chariots" (actual quote from an 'eminent historian', but it's ROTFL -- no chariot would survive such a 'thundering'), incidentally bringing horses to india (as horse's ass witzel claims). they defeated and enslaved the peaceful city-folks of the indus-sarasvati valley while carefully leaving no traces of war -- no skeletons with weapons marks on them, no traces of burning, etc. suddenly, the barbarians discovered that they (the barbarians) had a written language and a great literature (the vedas), town-planning skills etc. which they kindly allowed the defeated natives to use (much like the british christists kindly allowed indians to pay for the railways the british built to move their troops around). the defeated peaceful natives, of course, despite their highly advanced civic organization, had no literature or other signs of culture all other advanced civilizations have.
if you believe all this, i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.
it is a complete crock. witzel and company cling on to this because their entire careers are built upon this fabrication.
on the other hand, by occam's razor, the simplest explanation (the most likely correct one) is that there were no 'aryans'. the advanced indus-sarasvati valley civilization declined when the river disappeared. some indus-sarasvati people moved west to iran, still remembering their sacred writings based in the land of the seven rivers. still later, some of these people may have migrated further west to people europe. after all, there is another proof by existence: the gypsies from india migrated into much of europe after the mohammedan invasion.
so instead of accepting the word of malafide whites, christists and marxists, i suggest you think through this whole thing logically. you'll see that the 'aryan' 'migration' or 'aryan' 'tourism' or whatever is complete bullshit.
always consider: who benefits from any act? here the only ones who benefit from shoving the 'aryan' nonsense down peoples' throats are
a) academics who dont want their life's work to vanish and to have to lose lucrative sinecures. i call this the galileo syndrome, after the refusal of vatican theologists to accept (for 400 years!) that their theory about the sun going around the earth was complete and utter nonsense
b) christists who want to divide and conquer (and their neo-semitic allies like 'dravidians'
c) neo-semitic marxists who wish to soften up india for the chinese conquest.
none of these have anything other than self-interest in mind.
as you have seen with the natwar singh episode, those who are hanging on to power for personal enrichment have no shame whatsoever, and are willing to tell any lies at all.
10 comments:
San,
Actually no body claims that there have never been any migration in or out of India.
However Aryan Migration Theory which seeks to supercede AIT claims that A group of fair skinned people from near black sea migrated in large amounts and in arround 1500 BC supplanted Mohanjodaro civilization, and the original inhabitant went to south.
The genetic evidences from exacavations of harappa sites suggest that there was continuity of people who lived in that area, the two disjoints were observed at
6000 BC and ~800 BC which do not support AMT.
AMT claims support from Language difference, I think Rajeev is a better person to answer on this , however I do not think that Two Language groups validates AMT.
Regards
Good one.Also right about sufism,Darkstorm!
In a link posted recently about Hindus floundering without "identity" due to Vedhantham (!!!) (sic),the 'writer' with huge followers, projects sufis as mystics(SIC) along with a lot of confused outpourings!
Nothing always makes more sense than nonsense.
I think that this "Aryan Migration Theory" is a pathetic resort to some form of negotiation since the "Aryan Invasion Theory" has been exposed for it's racist origins.
"Ok, so if you say your culture originated in India, and if I say your culture originated in Germany, how about we agree on Ukraine and call it a night?"
What nonsense!
Anon,
Well why not antartica ;-) (At least thats what Tilak thought)
San,
You use Academics as something which is something trivial or matter of detail.
IMHO, it is not a wise thing to underestimate power of academics,
Academics represent ideas, if you have good ideas then you can progress else you suffer.
The reason left have so much control over policy in India in ocntrast to their strength is their stronghold over Academics and Journalism.
Unfortunately when BJP was in power, it did nothing to get rid of pinkos, heck we could have called decolourization or something.
That is why I have some good opinion of Dr. Joshi as he kicked some asses, even though he unneccessarily made a mess of IIM
The reason why AMT is importantis because it essentially says that Vedic civilization came as an outside package.
Whereas, I believe that irrespective of the immigrations that happened , Vedic civilization was developed in India and was somehow related to harappa.
Also I think timeline for Vedic civilization is older than 1500 BC which is suggested.
Your premise that Dravidas were tribal and Caucasion brought civilization doesnt stand on strong legs.
This Aryan Vs Dravidian divide was just another mischief of "Gora log and their loyal GungaDeen"
Regards
Regards
"it seems like India has always been an historically conquerable land"
i didnt quite like this statement. i thought we resisted many great invasions until the barbarians got the better a thousand years ago. what followed was a consolidation of their power and degradation of ours. the british replaced these barbarians.
san, ur statement is very typical of someone whose mind has been enslaved by the ait. another inherent assumption in your statement is that the indus civilization started only a few hundred years before christ. and so your historically conquerable land spent a lot of time under foriegn rule. but if indus civilization existed much before 6000 b.c. or even around 9000 b.c. as some evidence may suggest, and was filled with such prosperity that it was the primary target, then it is only fair to say it did a splendid job resisting the looters. also, it is important to remember that a hundred years is a short time when talking about civilizations.
and regarding migration, it must have happened in substantial numbers to override the local culture and only then will any aryan migration theory hold. the most logical thing in case of migration is assimilation of alien culture in local culture. so amt to hold any kind of credibility must first prove demographic invasion of a massive scale. i dont think it is possible for this to happen over an area as vast as indus valley and, eqully importantly, over a short span of few hundred years.
san, might i say, you are suffering from er... stockholm syndrome?
and next time, please post some evidence. you already stated your opinions. i'd say the burden of proof lies with the propogators of amt.
I am curious exactly how Rajeev arrived at his conclusion from the article -
There is no evidence of modern humans outside Africa earlier than 50,000 years ago, said Dr. Richard Klein, an archaeologist at Stanford. Also, if something happened 65,000 years ago to allow people to leave Africa, as Dr. Macaulay's team suggests, there should surely be some record of that in the archaeological record in Africa, Dr. Klein said. Yet signs of modern human behavior do not appear in Africa until 50,000 years ago, the transition between the Middle and Later Stone Ages, he said.
"If they want to push such an idea, find me a 65,000-year-old site with evidence of human occupation outside of Africa," Dr. Klein said.
Dr. Macaulay said genetic dates had improved in recent years, now that it is affordable to decode the whole ring of mitochondrial DNA, and not just a small segment.
"But he said he agreed "that archaeological dates are much firmer than the genetic ones" and that it was possible his 65,000-year date for the African exodus was too old."
If San supports this aryan dravidian racism, then I would say he needs some more research before it is too late. I read the first comment above by San, it is short of literature that Witzel and other racists have in possession. San doesn't know [ nor required to know these silly stuff, except to argue with mitrokhins and macaulayian offsprings] details of british mechanism, they were trying to apply the 'theory' of every drunkard/fascist/racist in britain to Indians. This is the story of Indian history. I feel pity for the brits and the west because of this ignorance.
The importance of AIT is not because of whether vedic civillization comesfrom outside or inside. The knower of Vedas know the life and death[ Burrow arguments from Macaulay to criticize me here !]. The importance of this AIT is that if people question it, then they can potentially know the world view of the racists and dozens of their pet theories for which they have been paid. The racists killed people in German, the same ones acted in Russia and China, they will act more ! The stake of the killers are very high here. When you expose these killers through AIT, they will look at their publications, their work, if they have any sense, they will for once ponder over life like the ancient Indians did. This is painful for the racists, who survive on govt money and enjoy a lot of power.
Peace to all.
Rajeev,
My salutations to all of you who see through the propaganda and persist in opposing this AIT. It is indeed tough to see through these racists like witzel. They have a funny way of arguing, somewhere they didn't find a horse shoe or a cow shoe. One can draw almost infinite conclusions out of that, but these fucking harvard professors are bit dumb and stalinist. By announcing repeatatively that there is no horse show or cow tail or human hair or aryan buttock etc, they are forcing their pet theories that has created hovoc in many parts of the world in this century alone. They are trying to enslave the mind.
Mind is infinite. Descretion/differentiation is change of focus. Imposing a definition on the pattern of descretion, and ensuring that the none escapes beyond this pattern is what this war about. They argue funnily, the castes were not given this supposedly essential element of life - This is wrong, but a minor issue. The major issue is they slaughter and controll massive populations by forcing a pattern of descretion to defend themselves. This is what the racists, marxists thugs are doing. Thats what witzel trying to do when he says he would target the BBC. If you are poor then they will slaughter like the marxists do. If you are rich, they will say that it had to do with the image in their own minds. What idiots ! They should be driven out of the JNUs and exposed at the harvards.
On the defensive side, looting in the govt and becoming professors at harvard by expounding the racists theory is their concern. However People could have enough strenth so as not be bonded by these nazis, marxists et al. Let them shoot in concentration camps, let them create stalinist regimes, however let us pray the mind be free to worship beyond it.
Jai Sri Ram.
San,
Allow one to disagree on what you said below. The zews were not slaughtered in such a way untill the character of german nation manifested in a new way, a grand way suitable to the spirit of that nation. [ yes through these aryan stuff].
This manifestation of character by artificially creating conditions for mass migration is hopeless. It didn't happen in Pakisthan partition. The sqabbles are there in the land of pure. Manifestation of character by maoists means didn't work, neither it worked in witzels homeland. Further that the hindu (sub)identity is a recipe for gang war is pretty macaulayian stuff.
You seem to be scintific when talking about a laminar flow, I would love the turbulence of a fountain more than the petroleum spilled laminar surfs. WHy ? Thapper/Witzel would say that I am hindutva and that is my uncivillized property.Thapper or witzel can't see that turbulence of the fountain in the mountain means much more, represents much more in such laminar vs petty turbulent debate, certainly more than a grand laminar march to the city for manifestation of characters. Salutations to every life in city, but to imply that the sun only sets in a village because of images created by Max Mueller is petty chauvinism itself, what character ?
Here again they show the ability of urban migration to destroy caste and tribal divisions of old, mixing and churning everyone together in the urban melting pot. I think the growing urbanization is a good idea. Cities are engines of assimilation, able to destroy the petty caste and tribal identities, along with ethnic regional and even religious affiliations, to bring about a greater long-term harmony.
The reduction of the caste/tribal turbulence will allow Indian society to more quickly achieve a laminar flow that moves society forward at a faster rate, without being hamstrung by the petty eddies and currents of ethnic warfare. Eventually quality of a person's character will completely trump issues of pedigree.
Darkstorm:
C'mon, you can do better than that. It does mean that neither you nor Rajeev nor anybody else that commented, have read the article - which is not surprising considering that neither of you are all that well informed. The article is quite clear that its "theory" or "hypothesis" is neither "generally accepted" nor any sort of a "proof". That a bunch of universities are proposing a "hypothesis" is nothing new. After all, that is how the "academics" get their funding. Now in the article Dr. Klein clearly says that no archaeological remains dating to that period have been found that indicates such a migration. Absent that you have no proof. (Incidentally, this is the same argument that have been raised regarding the arrival of St. Thomas in India - there are no sites and therefore no proof. How do you spell hypocrisy, DarkStorm) The devil is in the last sentence where the primary scientist acknowledges that (1) the archaeologists have a better handle on the date and (2) it is possible that his own dates are too old.
Amazingly, Rajeev in the write up talks about "science" (and what is "science" if it does not mention "Galileo"). So how does this get accepted as "science"? Shouldn't there be some sort of a "proof" that displaces the earlier "theory"? And what is that "proof" - the admittance from a scientist that his own dates could be wrong? And this is the new "science" that Rajeev would have us believe? Fine "proof" this one. Talk about "dumbing" down of Indian science.
Let's take the case of Galileo - the prevalent theory in Europe when he made his discovery was that the Earth was the center and the sun and all the stars revolved around the earth. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a theory that the church started but had been prevalent since the time of Ptolemy and Aristotle. In other words, this was the established theory until Copernicus disproved it in 1543. Galileo "proved" it again in 1610 using his telescope. However it was opposed by leading astronomers of his day and Galileo failed to provide answers to their most important question - the parallax effect. It was not until 1838 that Friedrich Bessel provided the parallax effect with the 61 Cygni star.
Now we come to the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory. Michael Witzel and his scientists have suggested that the "Aryans" came to India from the Levant. There is considerable evidence for a Levant link. He has also studied Harappan civilization using the same methods that other archaeologists and scholars have used to study Egypt, South America and other Asian civilizations. Why should the Harappan civilization not be studied in this manner? If the study of ancient civilizations in other parts of the world using the same methods have produced results, please give us one good reason, based on "science" that it should not be done for the Harappan Civilization.
So "seriously" Darkstorm, you can tell the emperor that he has no clothes, Rajeev won't mind - he is a free spirit. No kojones? Thought so. So much for "independent" thinking.
Post a Comment