Akbar

[roadrunner]

why are you so obsessed with a name? It's very simple, it doesn't matter if south India was called Pakistan, and real Pakistan was called the Ali Jinnah's Kingdom. THE HISTORY OF THE LAND DOES NOT CHANGE.

The "glorious civilizations" are very much a part of Pakistani history. It's like saying the Roman Empire is not a part of Italian history, or the Ottoman Empire is not a part of Turkish history.

 

[Vinod2070]

why are you so obsessed with a name? It's very simple, it doesn't matter if south India was called Pakistan, and real Pakistan was called the Ali Jinnah's Kingdom. THE HISTORY OF THE LAND DOES NOT CHANGE.

The "glorious civilizations" are very much a part of Pakistani history. It's like saying the Roman Empire is not a part of Italian history, or the Ottoman Empire is not a part of Turkish history.

I am not obsessed with anything. Just trying to point out the holes in your theories. And believe me they are more than all the stars in the milky way.

When your theory starts generating more exceptions than positive results, its time to discard the theory. Hope you consider my humble suggestion.

I never denied that Pakistanis (only the native ones) inherit the glorious history and they should be proud of that.

I never said that Ottoman empire is not part Turk history but certainly Greco-Roman empire is not Turk history, even if it was based in the same land. It belongs to the Greeks and the Romans who may no longer be in that land. The same may apply to many Pakistanis.

In fact you are too obsessed with applying modern geographic divisions (which were not civilizational by any means only religious) to ancient history.

 

[Flintlock]

Native American history doesn't belong to the White Americans, even though they occupy the same land.

Similar logic can be applied to the lands comprising Pakistan.

 

[roadrunner]

Native American history doesn't belong to the White Americans, even though they occupy the same land.

Similar logic can be applied to the lands comprising Pakistan.

Native American history is not part of American history? Really? You sure? So what is it? Part of Mexico's history?

 

[Flintlock]

Native American history is not part of American history? Really? You sure? So what is it? Part of Mexico's history?

Let me repeat my sentence.

The Native American history of America cannot be claimed by White Americans.

 

[roadrunner]

Let me repeat my sentence.

The Native American history of America cannot be claimed by White Americans.

American history includes native American history. Doesn't matter what the name of America is.

 

[Flintlock]

American history includes native American history. Doesn't matter what the name of America is.

I didn't say that.

I said that it cannot be claimed to be White American history.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

 

[roadrunner]

I didn't say that.

I said that it cannot be claimed to be White American history.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Your statement is totally irrelevant. It's like me saying Balochi history of Pakistan cannot be claimed by Sindhi Pakistanis - which is totally obvious.

 

[Flintlock]

Your statement is totally irrelevant. It's like me saying Balochi history of Pakistan cannot be claimed by Sindhi Pakistanis - which is totally obvious.

Yeah. Exactly.

So the history of the IVC people cannot be claimed by Pakistanis.

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah. Exactly.

So the history of the IVC people cannot be claimed by Pakistanis.

You're getting confused.

Native American history cannot be claimed by WHITE America.

But Native American history CAN be claimed by America.

IVC history CAN be claimed by Pakistan.

In fact, your example isn't relevant in the sense you're trying to make it. IVC history can be claimed by Sindhi, Punjabi, Baloch, and Pashtun Pakistanis since they are descended from them. White Americans are not descended from Native Americans. But as I explained above, all this IS American history.

 

[Flintlock]

You're getting confused.

Native American history cannot be claimed by WHITE America.

But Native American history CAN be claimed by America.

IVC history CAN be claimed by Pakistan.

In fact, your example isn't relevant in the sense you're trying to make it. IVC history can be claimed by Sindhi, Punjabi, Baloch, and Pashtun Pakistanis since they are descended from them. White Americans are not descended from Native Americans. But as I explained above, all this IS American history.

Modern Pakistanis have little to do with IVC people. They all entered the region of Pakistan after the demise of IVC.

You need a people to claim a history. If you don't have a people, and you don't have a culture either, well then you can't claim the history.

 

[roadrunner]

Modern Pakistanis have little to do with IVC people. They all entered the region of Pakistan after the demise of IVC.

You need a people to claim a history. If you don't have a people, and you don't have a culture either, well then you can't claim the history.

Not true on 2 counts.

1) you are assuming everyone just packed up their bags and left the IVC, or were wiped out. Evidence does not support this, and you have not presented any evidence to suggest this.

2) Even IF it's true that everyone packed up their bags migrated after the demise of IVC (which is almost impossible), then the IVC still falls in the boundaries of Pakistani history, since the culture and events of the IVC took place within the land mass known as Pakistan today.

On point 2), one could not say the Pashtun history is part of IVC history, IF everyone just got up and migrated from IVC during it's demise, but one could say IVC is part of Pakistan's history - In the worst case, IVC has to be a part of Pakistani history.

 

[QuickSilver]

So instead of saying, "yes, I don't know how to disagree with your statement, Roadrunner", why try and bumble your way out of the hole you find yourself in and try to start another flame war?

We have been through Pakistan not being called Pakistan before 1947 a million times, even on this thread. It's a ridiculous, pathetic, and weak argument to use, when as we all know, all countries' have a history that is independent of their name. Gaulic history is still French history, even though they didn't call themselves "France" in particular at the time.

The Cem H was/is located in Pakistan. I've given evidence of this.

Mr.RR, I havent started any flame wars. You have called my argument 'ridiculous,pathetic and weak' argument without proving it why it is so (all you did was to tell me u dint understand it!! and that is not valid to prove my argument wrong)

The cem H is located in regions which is now pakistan. before 1971, bangaldesh was also in pakistan. So do they also claim the same history?

Also, native american history cannot be claimed by white americans. white americans' history is with the european history. they call themselves the 'settlers' not the 'natives'. so in this case, your argument that white americans can claim native american history is wrong.

cheers

 

[donrahul]

@ RR..
The Hagia Sofya in Istanbul was not a Turkish creation, but it was built by the Byzantines.. This byzantine empire was over run by the Ottoman turks, who thankfully spared the church and turned it into a Mosque. So Ottoman Turks cannot claim the Hagia Sofya as their own.. as it belonged to a different culture to a different set of people who were invaded..
Similarly IVC belonged to a different set of people completely different from the current set of people who occupy the same land. there is not even a culture connection here and so any claims of inheritance is pure and untainted BS

 

[donrahul]

^^ Revival..