The Strategy which is still effectively working even after two hundred years

[American_Millenium]

Really PIE people had a name called Siddhartha who became buddha? what is next there were no Indians only Chinese in India?Do you really think we look like Chinese? i mean really?

1. PIE stands for Proto-Indo-Europeans. PIE is not an individual.

2. Siddartha was said to have blue eyes.... what a coincidence...

3. Who said anything about the Chinese? You are becoming hysterical. The entire subcontinent was populated by an Australoid group who shared genetic affinity with Australian Aborigines. These populations developed the Dravidian language group and formed one common ethno-linguistic community. They looked more like Aborigines than Chinese.

4. The Indo-Aryans descended from Central Asia and depopulated the shit out of them in the North, leading to Dravidian retreat towards South India. Over centuries these Indo-Aryans continued to mix with native populations, leading to the brown-skinned populations of North India you find today.

I know it irks you, but it's science... Buddha was a blue-eyed White guy!

 

[Bombermanx1]

1. PIE stands for Proto-Indo-Europeans. PIE is not an individual.

2. Siddartha was said to have blue eyes.... what a coincidence...

3. Who said anything about the Chinese? You are becoming hysterical. The entire subcontinent was populated with an Australoid group who shared genetic affinity with Australian Aborigines. These populations developed the Dravidian language group and formed one common ethno-linguistic community. They looked more like Aborigines than Chinese.

4. The Indo-Aryans descended from Central Asia and depopulated the shit out of them in the North, leading to Dravidian retreat towards South India. Over centuries these Indo-Aryans continued to mix with native populations, leading to the brown-skinned populations of North India you find today.

I know it irks you, but it's science... Buddha was a blue-eyed White guy!

Like i said whatever rocks your boat man, Sure buddha was a white guy and we are all whites who are a bit tanned. lol.
Tell me where did human start from?again?

 

[American_Millenium]

Well Karma is biatch and it is getting back at you, whites wiped out others without question they had rallies of lynch mods to lynch negros and being black was crime them, now the same is happening to you, what goes up comes down

Then don't scream accusations of racism when we start fighting back

 

[Fattyacids]

British left 562 princely states independent after their suzerainty expired, our great leader Sardar Patel united them into India. The nationalism was so strong that those states preferred to sign accession paper.

While in case of China, Chinese nationalism failed to unite China and it was only under Iron fist of Mao Zedong that China was united under one government.

If you want an intellectual discussion, you'll have to be truthful and go by established history, not your own interpretation

After India union was only created in 1947, not all states joined willingly, some were forced or annexed, but that's irrelevant. My point is, you never had a civil war after the country was formed.

In a civil war, there'll be fractions, it's a war. But China the country was always there, and ROC was the legitimate ruler until Mao won the war. It's not about language or democracy, it's a civil war between two nationalistic parties of different ideologies.

To help you understand, imagine today if a civil war broke out between Congress and BJP, India the country will still be there, coz it's been formed. And Congress will be the legitimate ruler, until outcome of the war is decided. Likewise, China has always been there, Mao just won the war. See, it's that simple really.

As always, your map is wrong. No map can capture the changing political events throughout the civil war, but this one is closer to ROC.

 

[American_Millenium]

Like i said whatever rocks your boat man, Sure buddha was a white guy and we are all whites who are a bit tanned. lol.
Tell me where did human start from?again?

Certainly not India! Besides, what does that mean anyway? Do you hold allegiance to sub-Saharan Africa... or more specifically the nation of Kenya?

 

[Bombermanx1]

Certainly not India! Besides, what does that mean anyway? Do you hold allegiance to sub-Saharan Africa... or more specifically the nation of Kenya?

No i want your theory of how human race started and how old was it? and how did it occupy this earth?

 

[American_Millenium]

No i want your theory of how human race started and how old was it? and how did it occupy this earth?

Science has the answer - speciation. Anyway, this thread will probably be closed if we keep discussing this because we are going WAY off-topic.

No i want your theory of how human race started and how old was it? and how did it occupy this earth?

Actually never mind, because the topic is a bunch of BS anyway.

 

[faithfulguy]

Certainly not India! Besides, what does that mean anyway? Do you hold allegiance to sub-Saharan Africa... or more specifically the nation of Kenya?

Some Indians came up with out of India theory. Believing that Indo-Europeans came out of India and spread to Europe.

But of course this was debunked. With Indian invasion as the only alternative, since Indians speak a language with the same language family, some Indians just keep on denying the fact.

 

[American_Millenium]

Some Indians came up with out of India theory. Believing that Indo-Europeans came out of India and spread to Europe.

But of course this was debunked. With Indian invasion as the only alternative, since Indians speak a language with the same language family, some Indians just keep on denying the fact.

Of course it's a bunch of bull that is not taken seriously by any modern academic.

Why don't Europeans look like Dravidians?

Why is there a sense of continuity in the subcontinent, from lighter-skinned more Caucasoid appearance Northern Indians, and more Australoid looking darker-skinned Southern Indians?

Why do (coincidentally apparently), the languages also match the physical descriptions perfectly? The light-skinned Northern people are predominantly Indo-Aryan in language and culture (as well as sharing some genetic affinity with Central Asians and Eastern Europeans), while the Southern people are predominantly Dravidian in language and culture (not to mention sharing more genetic affinity with native Australoid populations and their ancient haplogroups)?

It's all too coincidental... besides this has been further reconfirmed from genetic findings in this recent decade; the original Iranians and Indo-Aryans were European populations.

"We also know that, according to the linguistic center of gravity principle, the most likely point of origin of a language family is in the area of its greatest diversity. By this criterion, India, home to only a single branch of the Indo-European language family (i. e., Indo-Aryan), is an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the Indo-European homeland, compared to Central-Eastern Europe, for example, which is home to the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Albanian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian and Greek branches of Indo-European.

Both mainstream Urheimat solutions locate the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the vicinity of the Black Sea."

 

[faithfulguy]

Of course it's a bunch of bull that is not taken seriously by any modern academic.

Why don't Europeans look like Dravidians?

Why is there a sense of continuity in the subcontinent, from lighter-skinned more Caucasoid appearance Northern Indians, and more Australoid looking darker-skinned Southern Indians?

Why do (coincidentally apparently), the languages also match the physical descriptions perfectly? The light-skinned Northern people are predominantly Indo-Aryan in language and culture (as well as sharing some genetic affinity with Central Asians and Eastern Europeans), while the Southern people are predominantly Dravidian in language and culture (not to mention sharing more genetic affinity with native Australoid populations and their ancient haplogroups)?

It's all too coincidental... besides this has been further reconfirmed from genetic findings in this recent decade; the original Iranians and Indo-Aryans were European populations.

"We also know that, according to the linguistic center of gravity principle, the most likely point of origin of a language family is in the area of its greatest diversity. By this criterion, India, home to only a single branch of the Indo-European language family (i. e., Indo-Aryan), is an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the Indo-European homeland, compared to Central-Eastern Europe, for example, which is home to the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Albanian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian and Greek branches of Indo-European.

Both mainstream Urheimat solutions locate the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the vicinity of the Black Sea."

Thanks for sharing this. I hope that one or more Indians come into reality after reading your post. They need to face their own history instead of reinventing it.

 

[MastanKhan]

Still the people in subcontinent thinks all that is western is good without realizing the depths they have fallen into by believing so .

Hi,

Don't believe in it----there is more decepetion in this statement---it is to keep you down---because if you decide to change it---there will be infighting---and in fighting---you will lose what you have accomlished.

Now as for identity---what ever the 'true colors' are---they will come out.

Look at hidustan, pakistan----what they learnt from the british---they utilized it to their advantage and look how far ahead you people are from other asian and african nations who did not.

First of all---you cannot break the spiritual heritage of a hindu---try you may---but if he does not want to, it won't happen---. It has been time tested.

When he was talking about 'beggars'---it was in contrast to beggars in england of HIS time. England was brooke after the 100 year war---. There were less beggars in india at that time----so less became miniscule----remember the eye sees what the brain wants it to see---.

The problems of pakistan are more of character---indians can answer for themselves.

 

[INDIC]

If you want an intellectual discussion, you'll have to be truthful and go by established history, not your own interpretation

After India union was only created in 1947, not all states joined willingly, some were forced or annexed, but that's irrelevant. My point is, you never had a civil war after the country was formed.

In a civil war, there'll be fractions, it's a war. But China the country was always there, and ROC was the legitimate ruler until Mao won the war. It's not about language or democracy, it's a civil war between two nationalistic parties of different ideologies.

To help you understand, imagine today if a civil war broke out between Congress and BJP, India the country will still be there, coz it's been formed. And Congress will be the legitimate ruler, until outcome of the war is decided. Likewise, China has always been there, Mao just won the war. See, it's that simple really.

As always, your map is wrong. No map can capture the changing political events throughout the civil war, but this one is closer to ROC.

You had a peaceful transition from Qing Dynasty to Republic of China, civil war came later. My point was without iron fist of Mao Zedong, the Chinese version of democracy and Chinese nationalism wasn't strong enough to unite entire China as a single nation.

I don't believe any country should be an inspiration for others. America is the way it is because we develop it for American people, not for the benefit of other countries.

I understand you tried to associate me with China just because I'm a Taiwanese American and I speak the truth about India. And why do you bring up China as a possible inspiration for others. You must be so obsessive with China that you would consider their government as an inspiration for others.

Since you claimed lot many things, I wanted to know how China failed to achieve it with a common language and common Han race and why your Chinese nationalism was weak enough to unite entire China under single nationalism in a democratic system after the very peaceful transition from Qing Dynasty to Republic of China .

 

[INDIC]

I don't know... I mean if the Indo-Aryan branch of the Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't colonize the subcontinent then I doubt that the Dravidian would have established a culture beyond that of pastoralists.

Our ancestors had nothing called Aryan or Dravidian races, you are telling us the same colonial bullshit of Aryan-Dravidian divide. Tell us about ancient Indian book where there is mention of Aryan and Dravidian as a race.

 

[JSCh]

Mao united China because the majority of the Chinese people support him and the CCP.

Chinese nationalism has always been strong, in fact it is especially strong and one of the major factor in Chinese politic at the time.

Why democracy did not unite China? Because democracy did not delivered to the satisfaction of Chinese nationalism.

Shandong which is a part of China were leased to Germany under threat of force in 1898. But after WWI, at the Treaty of Versailles, Shandong was not return to China by the Allies despite China supporting the Allies during WWI.

May Fourth Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The May Fourth Movement (traditional Chinese: 五四運動; simplified Chinese: 五四运动; pinyin: Wǔsì Yùndòng) was an anti-imperialist, cultural, and political movement growing out of student demonstrations in Beijing on May 4, 1919, protesting the Chinese government's weak response to the Treaty of Versailles, especially allowing Japan to retain territories in Shandong which had been surrendered by Germany after the Siege of Tsingtao. These demonstrations sparked national protests and marked the upsurge of Chinese nationalism, a shift towards political mobilization and away from cultural activities, and a move towards a populist base rather than intellectual elites. Many political and social leaders of the next decades emerged at this time.

May_Fourth_Movement#Birth_of_Chinese_Communism

The May Fourth Movement served as an intellectual turning point in China; it was a seminal event that radicalized Chinese intellectual thought. Western-style liberal democracy had previously had a degree of traction amongst Chinese intellectuals, but after the Versailles Treaty (which was viewed as a betrayal of China's interests), lost much of its attractiveness. Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, despite being rooted in moralism, were also seen as Western-centric and hypocritical.

Many in the Chinese intellectual community believed that the United States had done little to convince the imperialist powers (especially Britain, France, and Japan) to adhere to the Fourteen Points, and observed that the United States itself had declined to join the League of Nations; as a result they turned away from the Western liberal democratic model. Marxism began to take hold in Chinese intellectual thought, particularly among those already on the Left. It was during this time that communism was studied seriously by some Chinese intellectuals such as Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao.

Some historians[who?] have speculated that Chinese history might have taken a different course at this time had the United States taken a stronger position on Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and self-determination. The United States was not a major imperialist power and was in a relatively strong position to take an anti-imperialist stance; however, it did not do so. As a result, China turned its attention to utilizing other political tools that could potentially resolve many of the nation's issues. These tools subsumed the concepts of Marxism and Leninism.
===================================================================================

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. - Mark Twain

From China point of view, at the conclusion of WWII, the Diaoyu Islands were return together with Taiwan island. Likewise, the control of the South China Sea Spratly islands were handed over by Japan to Republic of China after WWII.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Some Indians came up with out of India theory. Believing that Indo-Europeans came out of India and spread to Europe.

But of course this was debunked. With Indian invasion as the only alternative, since Indians speak a language with the same language family, some Indians just keep on denying the fact.

Genetics confirms the same