Facts or Myth-- You Decide

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

"Indus Valley Civilization" was not neccesarily "mighty", but just old.

Yet that's not the point.

The point is: Who started it? Racially, certainly they were not today's "Indians".

This is because today's Indians are predominantly Australoids, and/or largely

Atstraloids with some (but minor) Mongoloid and Caucasoid admixtures as genetics science indicates.

Australoids have average IQ of 60s, even lower than that of Sub-Sahara Negroids.

If "Indus Valley Civilization" at the time had been started by the Australoids(Indians),

then Sub-Saraha Africa would have been full of equally old "civilisations" which were not the case.

Sorry, but tribes with average IQ of 60s don't start civilisations, as they could barely start a fire or build anything slightly more sophiticated than mudhuts without some help.


This simple logic shows that "Indus Valley Civilization" was NOT started by today's Indians, but by other people from different race.

They were "Aryans" -- not in the same sense of "Hitler's Aryans", but ppl from Central Asian Steppe (a tribe close to Persians) with IQ at least 90+. They

started "Indus Valley Civilization" and Indians/Austaloids destroyed it.

Forget about brain fart. I believe you just brain shat.

Get a life.

Huxley's original model included populations in India. Some scholars still use the term Australoid denote the small populations, mainly of some of the Adivasi and the Andamanese people in India and the Veddas in Sri Lanka. The American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1996, p. 382) by American Association of Physical Anthropologists. L. L. (Luigi Luca) Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza in their text, The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994, P. 241) both use the term.

It may be mentioned here that the major scheduled tribes of Orissa belong to three linguistic groups, namely, Indo-Aryan or Indo-Europeans, i.e. Non-Australoid, Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) speakers, i.e. Proto-Australoid, and Dravidian (Gondi or Kuvi) speakers, i.e. Australoid. Proto-Australoid racial group includes Bhumiz, Gadaba, Juang, Kharia, Koda, Kolha, Mahali, Mirdha, Munda, Santal and Saora tribes. Tribes like Bathudi, Bhatra, Binjhal, Bhuyan, Lodha and Saunti belong to non-Australoid racial stock while Australoid racial stock is represented by Gond, Kondh, Kissan, Oraon, Paraja and Pentia Halva tribes.

23 out of 54 Indian populations studied as Australoid, of which one speaks an Indo-European language (Dhangar of Maharashtra), 4 speak Austro-Asiatic languages (Kurmi of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar Kurmi of Bihar, and Juang and Saora of Orissa), and 18 speak Dravidian languages. 7 populations were designated as Mongoloid, and the remaining 24 as Caucasoid. No Proto-Australoid category was used. Note: Some mislabeling of Balgir's categories has occurred. Proto-Australoid embraces Dravidian speakers, whereas Australoid differs from these latter two.

 

[Jade]

They even try to claim Buddha as an Indian, even though he was born in Nepal.

Buddhism for kids

Buddhism - History for Kids!

Check the second paragraph. It starts as follows

A young Indian prince named Siddhartha Gautama Buddha had an idea......

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Buddhism for kids

Buddhism - History for Kids!

What a source.

Here is one from UNESCO:

Siddhartha Gautama, the Lord Buddha, was born in 623 B.C. in the famous gardens of Lumbini, which soon became a place of pilgrimage.

As the birthplace of the Lord Buddha - the apostle of peace and the light of Asia was born in 623 BC - the sacred area of Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from a very early period. Lumbini, in the South-Western Terai of Nepal, evokes a kind of holy sentiment to the millions of Buddhists all over the world, like Jerusalem to Christians and Mecca to Muslims.

Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

 

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

Pretty interesting BBC program.

The Story of India is a BBC TV documentary series, written and presented by historian Michael Wood, about the 10,000-year history of the Indian subcontinent in six episodes. It was originally aired on the BBC in six episodes in August and September 2007 as part of the BBC season "India and Pakistan 07", which marked the 60 years independence of India and Pakistan. In the United States, PBS broadcast the series on three Mondays, January 5, 12 and 19, 2009 from 9 to 11 PM. An accompanying text was published by BBC Books.

As in most of his documentaries, Wood explains historical events by travelling to the places where they took place, examining archeological and historical evidence at first hand and interviewing historians and archaeologists, as well as chatting with local people.

 

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

 

[Jade]

What a source.

Here is one from UNESCO:




Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

By the way, did you find anywhere that Buddha was a Nepali?

The same UNESCO source says

King Suddhodana, father of Gautama Buddha, was of the Shakya dynasty and belonged to the Kshatriya (warrior caste). Maya Devi, his mother, gave birth to the child on her way to her parent's home in Devadaha while resting in Lumbini under a sal tree in the month of May, 642 BC.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

By the way, did you find anywhere that Buddha was a Nepali?

The same UNESCO source says

Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal, nobody disputes this.

India didn't exist back then anyway:

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

The Indus Valley Civilization was based in what is now modern-day Pakistan, and Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal.

You might think the entire subcontinent belongs to you, but when I visit the birthplace of the Buddha, I buy a ticket to the nation of Nepal. Not to India.

 

[Jade]

Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal, nobody disputes this.

India didn't exist back then anyway:

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

The Indus Valley Civilization was based in what is now modern-day Pakistan, and Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal.

You might think the entire subcontinent belongs to you, but when I visit the birthplace of the Budda, I buy a ticket to the nation of Nepal. Not to India.

Why don't you go a little further in the past. Then we all belong to Gondwanaland. There is no China, India or US

On a serious note...if what you say is logic, then you have no claim over Tibet.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal, nobody disputes this.

India didn't exist back then anyway:

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

The Indus Valley Civilization was based in what is now modern-day Pakistan, and Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal.

You might think the entire subcontinent belongs to you, but when I visit the birthplace of the Buddha, I buy a ticket to the nation of Nepal. Not to India.

"Buddha"(Awakened one) was born in Eastern India, Siddhartha was born in Nepal. This history is inter-linked. Like I have said before he was born in a country/kingdom that was in both modern day Nepal and India. The Capital of this Kingdom where his father ruled from was in India.

And he was born in to a high caste Hindu family in 700 BC. Mongoloid people were considered barbarians/outsiders by the plains people where Buddha lived.

You might think the entire subcontinent belongs to you, but when I visit the birthplace of the Buddha, I buy a ticket to the nation of Nepal. Not to India.

Go to the exact place too. Walk some miles down and you will be in India and wouldn't even know it.

 

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

India didn't exist back then anyway:

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

The Indus Valley Civilization was based in what is now modern-day Pakistan, and Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal.

You might think the entire subcontinent belongs to you, but when I visit the birthplace of the Buddha, I buy a ticket to the nation of Nepal. Not to India.

Yet you hate the white man but use terms used by them. Of course India existed back then

Outsiders called everything beyond the Indus "India" whereas the locals called it "Bharat"

The English term is from Greek Ἰνδία (Indía), via Latin India. Iindía in Byzantine (Koine Greek) ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (Ἰνδό&#962 river, since Herodotus (5th century BC) ἡ Ἰνδική χώρη, hē Indikē chōrē; "Indian land", Ἰνδός, Indos, "an Indian", from Avestan Hinduš (referring to Sindh, and listed as a conquered territory by Darius I in the Persepolis terrace inscription). The name is derived ultimately from Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the river, but also meaning "river" generically. Latin India is used by Lucian (2nd century).

The name India was known in Old English, and was used in King Alfred's translation of Orosius. In Middle English, the name was, under French influence, replaced by Ynde or Inde, which entered Early Modern English as Indie. The name India then came back to English usage from the 17th century onwards, and may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese.

Sanskrit indu "drop (of Soma)", also a term for the Moon, is unrelated, but has sometimes been erroneously connected, listed by, among others, Colonel James Todd in his Annals of Rajputana. Todd describes ancient India as under control of tribes claiming descent from the Moon, or "Indu" (referring to Chandravanshi Rajputs)

印度 (pronounced Yin du) is the Chinese word for India. It sounds similar to Hindu and Sindhu.

Tenjiku (天&#31482 is the Japanese word commonly used in reference to pre-modern India. Tian, the root word for the Japanese kanji, means "heaven", while, jiku, means: "the center of", or 'primary concentration of'. Therefore the word is known to mean: "the heavenly center of the world" or "the spiritual axis (center)", a reference to the Indian origins of Buddhism

No one is taking all the credit of the Indian subcontinent. States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana etc all have the shared history with modern day Punjab and Sindh in pakistan whereas states in India such as Bihar, West Bengal, Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya etc all have a shared history of the people of Bangladesh.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yet you hate the white man but use terms used by them. Of course India existed back then

What a lie! Some of my best friends are white people, from Canada, Britain, etc.

I have no reason at all to hate them.

 

[|| |\| ||)) || /\\ |\|]

What a lie! Some of my best friends are white people, from Canada, Britain, etc.

I have no reason at all to hate them.

I didn't mean you in particular

Not gonna post the names though but you can find it here.. http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...-racism-against-chinese-western-expats-3.html

don't waste time on white trash. that is pretty simple to me.

Many of our countrymen are also mentally the slavs of the white men.

Those “洋奴” can't think of anything else, but being the slimy a$$-kissers of the white men.

We have to clean up those traitors and white-loving trashes first, then let the white men show us some respect.

That's besides the point.


I gave clear points to back my statement that anything beyond the Indus was called India and the natives called the land Bharat. Both are used as the official name.

 

[Ghoster]

Even if we go by the pakistani theory that India and Pak were seperate entities , how come people who migrated to pakistan from India during partition which accounted for some half of pak population at that time have anything to do with IVC.

And at the same time how could they deny large chunk of people who migrated from pak to India during partition, there right to ancestors.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Even if we go by the pakistani theory that India and Pak were seperate entities , how come people who migrated to pakistan from India during partition which accounted for some half of pak population at that time have anything to do with IVC.

And at the same time how could they deny large chunk of people who migrated from pak to India during partition, there right to ancestors.

Only 7% ppl migrated to Pakistan... the urdu speakers living in karachi....lol @ half population........... U bet ur another descendant of IVC ppl living in south india...

 

[Ghoster]

Only 7% ppl migrated to Pakistan... the urdu speakers living in karachi....lol @ half population

That was a mistake from my part. However

The population of west pakistan during partition was 31 million.
Pakistan, Population Programmes and Progress

From wikipidea,Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5.3 million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in Pakistan & 1.2 million moved in each direction to and from Sind.

A 6.5 million of 31 million makes more than 20% ,leaving all other parameters.

Then how is it only 7%.

U bet ur another descendant of IVC ppl living in south india...

No , I don't think so....

Living in South INdia doesnot autoatically make you a descendant of IVC neither does living in Pakistan.