Mexicans are Indians from India

[Hermione]

There are quite a few philologists in India too! And philologists are Human too. Such a big breakthrough as proof of similarities between Indo-Aryan/Dravidian and Amerindian languages will not be concealed on the basis of such trivial reasons like Indians may derive pride out of this etc.

It is not considered an exact science as of now.

It's also plausible the other way round. Would you like to concede that we broke off from an Iranic religion over some ideas that we had which weren't acceptable to them?

Given the references to the Indian topography in Rig Veda and the evidence of existence of the old and largest human settlements in India which outsizes any other found, I doubt it is so.

 

[Indischer]

It is not considered an exact science as of now.

Yes. It can never be, as language is very fluidic. But it also does not jump into conclusions and makes leaps in faith over available evidence. If a link can be clearl established, it's accepted. If not, it isn't.

Genetics at least is an exact science. So, has any evidence of ancient Indic genes been found in Amerindians? To my knowledge, it hasn't been as yet.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

It's also plausible the other way round. Would you like to concede that we broke off from an Iranic religion over some ideas that we had which weren't acceptable to them?

No - actually that is unlikely because of the simple fact that the Avestan practices were largely a subset of Vedic/Indian customs. Though influence, when peacefully applied(no major war between two cultures) can never be a one way traffic. But you get the drift. Indian influence was much more than the other way around. But that is all established. The Amerindian hypothesis(yes it's just that) is not.

 

[Indischer]

Given the references to the Indian topography in Rig Veda and the evidence of existence of the old and largest human settlements in India which outsizes any other found, I doubt it is so.

The earliest proposed Indo-Aryan settlements are all in fact outside modern day India. the Andronovo, BMAC and Yaz cultures are all older than such settlements found in India. Have a looksy on them.

 

[Ayush]

You basterd !

sach kadva hota hai

 

[Hermione]

Yes. It can never be, as language is very fluidic. But it also does not jump into conclusions and makes leaps in faith over available evidence. If a link can be clearl established, it's accepted. If not, it isn't.

Most of the philologists in India have been of the marxist kind, trying to build on the theories of Aryan invasion. So I wont go by their expertise or of the Europeans.

 

[Indischer]

No - actually that is unlikely because of the simple fact that the Avestan practices were largely a subset of Vedic/Indian customs. Though influence, when peacefully applied(no major war between two cultures) can never be a one way traffic. But you get the drift. Indian influence was much more than the other way around. But that is all established. The Amerindian hypothesis(yes it's just that) is not.

Actually, a large subset of our undeniably 'Hindu' religious or litturgical literature has been composed entirely in India, after seperation from Iranic people. So, it might be difficult to say if they were our subset or that we developed a much larger set after seperation.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

But here's something to chew on: What made them abandon Hindu beliefs and start new religions? A few theories are lacking in this regard.

Undoubtedly you are going to say "caste"

 

[Kloitra]

Your understanding of science is old.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Most of the philologists in India have been of the marxist kind, trying to build on the theories of Aryan invasion. So I wont go by their expertise or of the Europeans.

Actually everyone has their own bias. There is also a well known one called - Confirmational bias. You will see what you wish to see and conclude what you want to. But I will not be surprised to know that ancient cultures had a greater reach than we previously knew. It is not bad that there are Marxist 'historians' but their virtual monopoly in the sphere is disturbing. What they say becomes law and established. It's simple - say x, y and z are Marxist scholars. A refers to B and B refers to C. All get great references but its cyclic! In the west history is less of a political football and more academic - because people are not so touchy*. We will get there.

* Except for contemporary history - aka Holocaust, Holodomor etc.

 

[Indischer]

Most of the philologists in India have been of the marxist kind, trying to build on the theories of Aryan invasion. So I wont go by their expertise or of the Europeans.

Here's the difficult part. Anyone who rationally approaches this conundrum will arrive at similar conclusions. Only the Hindu-Supremacists or Hindu-Apologetics will deviate from this and write totally contrasting stuff.

They're the ones who either write stuff like the entire World was Hindu once or stuff like Aryan Invasion definitely occured, our religion is that of Europeans and proof is dark skin of Dalits. I take both such theories with a bagful of salt.

 

[Anubis]

Any genetic studies on this??

 

[Indischer]

Undoubtedly you are going to say "caste"

I have no such theories, my Hindu-Supremacist friend. It's because I don't believe they were once Hindu in the first place. But since you've said Zoroashtrians were Hindus once, might as well take the story to it's logical(or is it illogical?) conclusion by stating the reasons too.

 

[Hermione]

It is not bad that there are Marxist 'historians' but their virtual monopoly in the sphere is disturbing.

Given what they have done to Indian history, I would not trust them as far as I can throw them.

They're the ones who either write stuff like the entire World was Hindu once or stuff like Aryan Invasion definitely occured, our religion is that of Europeans and proof is dark skin of Dalits. I take both such theories with a bagful of salt.

They are ones who are refuting Aryan invasion while the marxist try to cling on it just to show we are all outsiders. The Hindu nationalists are the ones refuting caste system. From opening up temples to outcastes to never speaking about castes, they are the most progressive kind, while the marxists rub in castes everywhere they can find. FYI RSS is the most casteless organization you can find.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

I have no such theories, my Hindu-Supremacist friend. It's because I don't believe they were once Hindu in the first place. But since you've said Zoroashtrians were Hindus once, might as well take the story to it's logical(or is it illogical?) conclusion by stating the reasons too.

I am not your friend you anti Hindu bigot. Keep you bigotry to yourself.