Ancient Man and His First Civilizations.Proving Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth and severe lie

[Joe Shearer]

Nope, lets not kid ourselfs. Aryans came to Pakistan 3500 years ago, around 2500 years ago some of them moved to India. Mlecchas is cultural term, used for someome who is not doing what aryans who entered 2500 years ago liked. Indian aryans called people of indus valley mlechas for not following caste system.

Their skin was white, there is no doubt about it. And there is nothing wrong with it either. Pure aryan had white skin tone, though no one know about their facial features. So aryans don't exist now but they left their mark in history for ever.

Not exactly.

You are mistaking language affinity, speaking the same language, with racial identity, belonging to the same race.

This is a common mistake. But it is a mistake.

Hindu religion and caste system was brought to India by the Aryans. Prior to the Aryan invasion, Indian civilization was as advanced as the Astraloid of Australia when the Brits first went there.

I suggest both parts of your post are difficult to prove at this time. Pre-history has never been as clearly demarcated as history proper.

 

[faithfulguy]

Please.

Don't take these views to be those of educated Indians. Only a section, devoted to restoring the caste supremacy of the Brahmins and some upper castes, subscribe to these revisionist schools of history, and oppose every single aspect of history, or economics, social science, anthropology, linguistics, anything in short proposed by either the original colonialists or contemporary international academic opinion, even opinion far removed from colonial paradigms.

Include the rest of us out, please.

A gentleman like you deserve an apology. I was debating with most of the "other" Indians in here. But you are much more reasonable for me to generalize.

Welcome back to this forum. So is it common for people of India to flat out reject AIT?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dont believe in white people superioty but im not dumb and dont have inferiorty complex to admit aryans had white skin tone. There is difference between hitler aryan shit and admiting that aryans skin tone was white before they mixed with indians. We can still see traces of them all over India through brahmins, who are generally look different and have more fair skin tone then average indian where they live.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

The inevitable. Music to Brahmin ears.

LOL.

I knew that this might crop up, but had hoped - against hope - that it might not.

Just for the heck of it:

1. Commonly accepted now is the theory that a language was widely adopted throughout south Asia roughly beginning 2500 to 1500 BC, and that it replaced Dravidian.
2. This language was a derivative of an older language called PIE by linguists, Proto-Indo-European. PIE evolved into Indo-Iranian and Indo-European. Indo-Iranian evolved into Indo-Aryan and Iranian.
3. The language may have been spread in India by a handful of people, and the older romantic notion of a tidal wave of white, blond, blue-eyed conquerors riding war-chariots is no longer taken seriously.
4. The Brahmins were/are descendants of an occupational group, the priests, who closed themselves into a closed group at a very early date.
5. There is no racial (=genetic) difference between Brahmins and any other part of the population. There is no difference in pigmentation either.

 

[faithfulguy]

Not exactly.

You are mistaking language affinity, speaking the same language, with racial identity, belonging to the same race.

This is a common mistake. But it is a mistake.



I suggest both parts of your post are difficult to prove at this time. Pre-history has never been as clearly demarcated as history proper.

True, I cannot prove it. But since Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, what other evidence of Hindu literature existed in another language other than a Indo-European language (Sanskrit) prior to the earliest known Sanskrit scripts. This would make the existence of Hinduism in India prior to the introduction of Sanskrit into India.

This joker does not even know whom he is opposed to.

Over and above that, there is this hilarious mechanical insistence on whites being mlechhas. Leaving that aside for the moment, so what? What has that to do with history?



Instead of racist propaganda, can we see some better evidence?

Now, do you see what I have to deal with. Forgive me if in any of my post I start to generalize and offend Indians. But I started out trying to talk sense into him. Most Indians in here start to back him up. Your statements just verify that not all Indians lack common sense. And since you are not here most of time, and most Indians are not in this forum, has a life and has common sense. Its just these social life lacking Indians in here that prescribed to those hate statements.

 

[Joe Shearer]

True, I cannot prove it. But since Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, what other evidence of Hindu literature existed in another language other than a Indo-European language (Sanskrit) prior to the earliest known Sanskrit scripts. This would make the existence of Hinduism in India prior to the introduction of Sanskrit into India.

Sanskrit is an artificial language, created roughly around the 5th century BC from an earlier language, Indo-Aryan, currently preserved only in versions of the Vedas. The freaky genius, sui generis, who created it by codifying Indo-Aryan on very systematic principles, was Panini.

There was/is no Hindu literature in any non-Indo-European (correctly, non-Indo-Iranian) language. However, it does not follow from that there was no Hinduism prior to the introduction of Indo-Aryan (not Sanskrit) into India.

What seems to have happened is that elements of the earlier belief systems were absorbed into the religious system described in the Vedas, and formed part of a very ancient religious practice, which probably was what was current practice when the Buddha and Mahavira preached their radically dissenting views.

Now, do you see what I have to deal with. Forgive me if in any of my post I start to generalize and offend Indians. But I started out trying to talk sense into him. Most Indians in here start to back him up. Your statements just verify that not all Indians lack common sense. And since you are not here most of time, and most Indians are not in this forum, has a life and has common sense. Its just these social life lacking Indians in here that prescribed to those hate statements.

:-(

Some points:

1. Indian society was dominated by one caste for centuries, from roughly the 10th century AD onwards. However, there is circumstantial evidence that caste was an issue even earlier.
2. Most new tribes and cultures encountered during the 'Sanskritisation' of north India were absorbed into the Varnashram by being awarded a caste, lower than the Brahmins, but in most cases, at intermediate social levels, higher than the lowest.
3. This process is known to have been going on even as late as the eighth century in the area known as Tamizhakam. Brahmins were the evangelisers for the language as well as the post-Vedic (modified and very early Hindu) pantheon and of course, for the social set-up.
4. The Buddhists caused havoc. They nearly dissolved the aberrant earlier social system prevailing at the time, to the acute discomfort of the dominant Brahmins.
5. The Brahmins fought back on several fronts. The situation stood reversed after a millennium and a half. The new language had disappeared, some of its tenets, vegetarianism, for instance, absorbed into what in the 18th or 19th century its followers started calling Hinduism. The Buddha, in some versions, became one of the ten avatars of God (in other parts of the country, there were other replacements).
6. External invaders without a strong belief system of their own were broken down in very rapid order. They were drawn into the old religion as new castes. So we have the sun-born, the moon-born, the fire-born....
7. Trouble came again when another set of invasions began, around 1000 AD. These new invaders proved difficult to move away into Hinduism. Instead, they gave the social leadership major headaches by converting large numbers of people. They offered these converts equality. Even at that hour of grave peril, the leadership kept its head, and managed to prevail, over time: the new religion is today as caste-riddled as the old one.

What we are dealing with is the aftermath. The situation when the British came and conquered, and would not compromise and join society as one more caste. It is the reaction to this that you observe on this thread and on others.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Everyone originated in Africa. From Africa to Southern India to rest of the world. This is not Indian hogwash. It is genetic science. Here is a brief presentation on the AIT and Genetic Science.

It isn't the most plausible conclusion if science kicks it in the face. Watch a Discovery Channel presentation.

The AIT was dead and debunked almost a decade ago. It's about time everyone moved on.

More revisionism, in full bloom.

One of the hall-marks of this school is that in keeping with their rejection of all things western, they reject western methods and practices in academic matters. Not for them the peer-reviewed publication; instead, they tend to depend heavily on self-referential material. We are lucky that at least in this case, we are asked to watch, not an amateur video, but a professional one.

They have no clue that no academician would take TV material as intellectual participation. But there's more.

Hinduism is completely indigenous to the Indian sub-continent. Your fantasies may now take a break.

More blooms.

The revisionists are the ideologues. They do not fight in the trenches. They write books published as vanity publications and bought and read widely by their admiring fans, uniformly from disciplines and backgrounds which are not from the humanities. By and large, they tend to be engineers, most from capitation fee colleges, or doctors or dentists, from the same type of colleges. Their lack of academic context, huge earning power and access to the Internet makes them easy prey for purveyors of instant history (and economics, and sociology, and religious analysis, and political science).

Their soldiery, these fans, are largely Internet Hindus.

"Resistance is useless. You will be absorbed."

 

[Indischer]

@Joe Shearer What are you doing here? This thread is beyond redemption.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Rajiv Malhotra explains why the Aryan-Dravidian race myth was created in the 18th century.

According to the AIT, the Aryans brought caste along with them. So, till this day, the caste system persists but the north Indian didn't know that they came from outside until the European colonizers and imperialists told them so. Hilarious!

When the ideologues were not writing vanity publications, they were on video. YouTube is a favourite.

One remarkable point to note is that all of them - Ramachandra, Taligere, Danon, Kota, Frawley, Malhotra - with ONE exception, all - have no background in humanities, in history, in linguistics, in anything of remote relevance to the subject of revising history, except a background in Sanskrit, either personal or familial. It is this background of ineffable ignorance and contradictory confidence that makes them such icons of the Internet Hindu.

@Joe Shearer What are you doing here? This thread is beyond redemption.

Gotterdammerung.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As you deem best.

Please take a look at my post on the following page. I will complete it with my own interpretation of events following the advent of the British in a few minutes. I am unable to write for long periods without taking some intervals out for rest.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the sub-continent is about caste, as far as internal social dynamics is concerned.

However, when it comes to Hindu-Muslim interactions, the freedom movement, the growth of the Congress, the sudden inauguration of the Muslim League, the more or less abandonment of the Congress by the Muslim 'salariat', the signs that there was a creeping take-over of the Congress by the Hindu Mahasabha, the growing influence of rabid Hindu businessmen on Gandhi, Gandhi's own chilling views on race and on caste - I believe that the case goes beyond caste. The British let out the genie from the bottle, but the genie went totally out of control.

I am gathering notes for a book on the early years of the Congress, and Muslim attitudes towards it; if only my health bears up to the task.:-(

 

[KingMamba]

Please take a look at my post on the following page. I will complete it with my own interpretation of events following the advent of the British in a few minutes. I am unable to write for long periods without taking some intervals out for rest.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the sub-continent is about caste, as far as internal social dynamics is concerned.

However, when it comes to Hindu-Muslim interactions, the freedom movement, the growth of the Congress, the sudden inauguration of the Muslim League, the more or less abandonment of the Congress by the Muslim 'salariat', the signs that there was a creeping take-over of the Congress by the Hindu Mahasabha, the growing influence of rabid Hindu businessmen on Gandhi, Gandhi's own chilling views on race and on caste - I believe that the case goes beyond caste. The British let out the genie from the bottle, but the genie went totally out of control.

I am gathering notes for a book on the early years of the Congress, and Muslim attitudes towards it; if only my health bears up to the task.:-(

I see I have read all of your posts, sorry to hear about your health I will pray for you. If you do get that book down please do share.

 

[guluchulo]

Please take a look at my post on the following page. I will complete it with my own interpretation of events following the advent of the British in a few minutes. I am unable to write for long periods without taking some intervals out for rest.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the sub-continent is about caste, as far as internal social dynamics is concerned.

However, when it comes to Hindu-Muslim interactions, the freedom movement, the growth of the Congress, the sudden inauguration of the Muslim League, the more or less abandonment of the Congress by the Muslim 'salariat', the signs that there was a creeping take-over of the Congress by the Hindu Mahasabha, the growing influence of rabid Hindu businessmen on Gandhi, Gandhi's own chilling views on race and on caste - I believe that the case goes beyond caste. The British let out the genie from the bottle, but the genie went totally out of control.

I am gathering notes for a book on the early years of the Congress, and Muslim attitudes towards it; if only my health bears up to the task.:-(

Sir your posts are amazing and from neutral POV instead of usual bs on these threads. I hope you recover soon from ilness.

 

[cloud_9]

Another thread about Aryan Invasion

Aryan (Albino) She is Jacinta Lal (Miss IndiaNZ 2010) half kiwi-half Fiji Indian

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

The inevitable. Music to Brahmin ears.

LOL.

I knew that this might crop up, but had hoped - against hope - that it might not.

Just for the heck of it:

1. Commonly accepted now is the theory that a language was widely adopted throughout south Asia roughly beginning 2500 to 1500 BC, and that it replaced Dravidian.
2. This language was a derivative of an older language called PIE by linguists, Proto-Indo-European. PIE evolved into Indo-Iranian and Indo-European. Indo-Iranian evolved into Indo-Aryan and Iranian.
3. The language may have been spread in India by a handful of people, and the older romantic notion of a tidal wave of white, blond, blue-eyed conquerors riding war-chariots is no longer taken seriously.
4. The Brahmins were/are descendants of an occupational group, the priests, who closed themselves into a closed group at a very early date.
5. There is no racial (=genetic) difference between Brahmins and any other part of the population. There is no difference in pigmentation either.

But there is difference in genetics of brahmins, they show higher ANI ancestry compared to other groups. So contrary to popular belief Brahmins were not actually the reason for spread of Indo-Aryan languages? They are just recent inmigrants priests who because of caste system (which was created by them i guess) show more ANI ancestry.

While the original so called aryans were mixed with god knows who. So no particular group/caste can claim them?

 

[Joe Shearer]

But there is difference in genetics of brahmins, they show higher ANI ancestry compared to other groups. So contrary to popular belief Brahmins were not actually the reason for spread of Indo-Aryan languages? They are just recent inmigrants priests who because of caste system (which was created by them i guess) show more ANI ancestry.

While the original so called aryans were mixed with god knows who. So no particular group/caste can claim them?

It is to be hoped, sincerely, earnestly, that nobody out there is expecting a thesis in full, in these posts. These are short messages, and brief, for aesthetic and practical reasons. Evidence absent does not give us absent evidence.

So, contrary to the statement made, Brahmins were most probably (there is no proof either way) the reason for the spread of the Indo-Aryan languages.

The migrants, Brahmins included, mixed with those already in residence. The numbers of the outsiders were small, relatively speaking, so small that they made no genetic impact on the residents. It is unlikely in the extreme that Brahmins can be distinguished from the general population. Study after study has shown their identity and that they are not distinguishable.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You're free to believe in it. Billions of people believe they will go to some imaginary heaven/hell after death despite living in an information/scientific age. You're no different. But you must also know that the world has moved on.

For others who wish to know more about the Aryan Invasion Theory you must check this out

Some others

No, it is not for them to check this out.

It is for you to stop comparing these populist bits with serious peer reviewed research. Any monkey can, many monkeys do put up this kind of stupid video. So what? This is meant to be viewed by the faithful - you - and is made by the faithful, those who have made up their minds a priori and then go around looking for evidence confirming their bent of mind.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, the singular defect in the revisionist corpus - the reference is strictly speaking to the neo-revisionists, not to the original, national revisionists - is that none of it has found acceptance in either Indian or international academic circles. They have just sold to the gullible public and made a name for themselves. This kind of propaganda may suit the Parivar, which has put its weight behind these efforts for its own reasons, but does not carry weight anywhere else.

No evidence exists or has been found that proves an 'Aryan Invasion'. We are not talking about a small skirmish here or there, but a massive all destructive one that forced one civilization to migrate from a place to another. No evidence exists. Recent work has put too many question marks on the AIT to be taken as the Truth.
Discovery, NatGEO and others have also made enough documentaries to this effect. Is it too hard to accept that we belong here? Perhaps to some...

The West had its reasons. Now that reason is pretty much gone - so most of the research is ironically done in the West itself. Most of the debunking of AIT was done by Western indologists in the last couple of decades.

Starting from Indus to the Brahmaputra - the same people have been living for 10000+ years.

While I am not claiming that there is an Out of India phenomenon, but thinking the Great Aryans moved in and removed the entire existing people to the South, and suddenly gifted a rich culture is beyond my level of acceptance. Maybe if I am high, I may accept it, otherwise not

It is interesting that all those who are so vehemently opposed to the idea that Indo-Aryan was a language belonging to a larger language group, and was introduced into India, also gain much impetus from what has been discarded for many decades now, that the Indo-Aryan language was not introduced by the Indo-Aryan race.

Nothing more than this needs to be said, to clean up the account that you have given. Try it and see what emerges.

Remember also that we are discussing pre-history, and there are no proofs as rigorous as we might wish when discussing an historical topic.

No evidence exists or has been found that proves an 'Aryan Invasion'. We are not talking about a small skirmish here or there, but a massive all destructive one that forced one civilization to migrate from a place to another. No evidence exists. Recent work has put too many question marks on the AIT to be taken as the Truth.
Discovery, NatGEO and others have also made enough documentaries to this effect. Is it too hard to accept that we belong here? Perhaps to some...

The West had its reasons. Now that reason is pretty much gone - so most of the research is ironically done in the West itself. Most of the debunking of AIT was done by Western indologists in the last couple of decades.

Starting from Indus to the Brahmaputra - the same people have been living for 10000+ years.

While I am not claiming that there is an Out of India phenomenon, but thinking the Great Aryans moved in and removed the entire existing people to the South, and suddenly gifted a rich culture is beyond my level of acceptance. Maybe if I am high, I may accept it, otherwise not

And please stop quoting Discovery and NatGEO as scientific and academic proofs. They are just the electronic equivalents of newspaper or popular journal articles.