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

[Indischer]

@American_Millenium Hope that you understand the subtle difference between Aryan Invasion and Aryan Migration/Aryan assimilation.

 

[AUz]

I was pretty sure that after my previous response you'd come up with some excuse for not posting a rebuttal.

You don't disappoint. Excuses and laziness... all your people are good for!

(Just remember that it was you who wanted to take me on, not the other way around.)

No..by God I was serious when I asked your age. You DO come out as an ignorant old white nutter with no future. Someone like who believes in sites like stormfront etc.

I have had exchanges with you before too...thats not the problem..but now it just seems to me that its a waste of time to argue with an old retired man living in his own little made-up world.

 

[Chronos]

I feel indians here are taking it in a different context in which mughals being muslim are evil and unfortunately are blind to the devastation brits caused to rich culture of subcontinent which gave them the Taj Mahal they are so proud of.. Whats brits gave yu guys except complex of being dark and illiterate ?

I can't believe I am defending the British here,

How do you think Sati was stopped?

How do you think the lower castes became aware of their wretched condition and decided to uplift themselves?

I can argue, with evidence that Islam is as alien and foreign to this land as the british are,

Every single country, including Turkey had to modernise to become where they are today.

You favor Pakistan being a closed society, that's your business.

It's a bit late for that argument to be carried in india, and hypocritical too.

 

[American_Millenium]

@American_Millenium Hope that you understand the subtle difference between Aryan Invasion and Aryan Migration/Aryan assimilation.

The Indo-Aryans did invade, and then culturally assimilated the Dravidian's into THEIR culture.

The only reason they don't look like the Indo-Aryans that initially invaded is because they took native Dravidian wives. Maternal ancestry (mtDNA) in both the north and south of India is a lot more indigenous than the paternal ancestry (Y-DNA).

 

[Indischer]

The Indo-Aryans did invade, and then culturally assimilated the Dravidian's into THEIR culture.

The only reason they don't look like the Indo-Aryans that initially invaded is because they took native Dravidian wives. Maternal ancestry (mtDNA) in both the north and south of India is a lot more indigenous than the paternal ancestry (Y-DNA).

Proof please. Please don't show linguistic diffusion as proof of invasion.

 

[American_Millenium]

No..by God I was serious when I asked your age. You DO come out as an ignorant old white nutter with no future. Someone like who believes in sites like stormfront etc.

I have had exchanges with you before too...thats not the problem..but now it just seems to me that its a waste of time to argue with an old retired man living in his own little made-up world.

Like I said, I'm not surprised that you have to use the typical generic excuse of [insert ad hominem here] as the reason for which you cannot continue this conversation. You are lazy, obnoxious, and intellectually dishonest. As if me being an old man has anything to do with why you can't come up with a response to the conversation YOU started. Either way, I'm not an old man... not like it even matters.

You had your *** handed to you on the bottom of Page 7 and you're not even willing to put up a response. That's all that needs to be said.

Proof please. Please don't show linguistic diffusion as proof of invasion.

Linguistic diffusion is indeed one part of the proof. Do you think that languages magically transport themselves across thousands of miles of land area without people to transmit them?

If there weren't any other evidence then it would still be the single most widely held theory on how Indians are speaking an Indo-European language.

Anyway, I hope you're not one of those types who doesn't know how to navigate Wiki pages for sources:

This is specifically in regards to genetic evidence though each page also discusses linguistic and archaeological findings:

Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andronovo culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AUz]

Like I said, I'm not surprised that you have to use the typical generic excuse of [insert ad hominem here] as the reason for which you cannot continue this conversation. You are lazy, obnoxious, and intellectually dishonest. As if me being an old man has anything to do with why you can't come up with a response to the conversation YOU started. Either way, I'm not an old man... not like it even matters.

You had your *** handed to you on the bottom of Page 7 and you're not even willing to put up a response. That's all that needs to be said.

no, first accept that you ARE an old man. I'm very sure that you are one...

I bet you supported Romney over Obama in last election, didn't you?

I also know that you don't like immigration of Hispanics very much...

You are a "typical" American hilly billy who is so out of touch of reality that it is sad to even argue with you...seeing your old age that is.

 

[American_Millenium]

no, first accept that you ARE an old man. I'm very sure that you are one...

I bet you supported Romney over Obama in last election, didn't you?

I also know that you don't like immigration of Hispanics very much...

You are a "typical" American hilly billy who is so out of touch of reality that it is sad to even argue with you...seeing your old age that is.

Ok, since it really matters to you, I'll only go off-topic this once. Born December 22nd 1990. That makes me 23 years old.

Anyway, like I said, as if me being an old man has anything to do with why you can't come up with a response to the conversation you started.

There is clearly nothing more for you to do except express your inability to contain your emotional insecurities.

Good luck!

 

[Indischer]

@American_Millenium Languages are spread through migration and intermingling, not through mere Invasion. The emperors of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire spoke Turkic and Persian. Any guesses how many Indians speak these languages?

How can you be sure that an invasion took place when no evidence is forthcoming? Sanskrit also borrowed from an already existing Indian language, meaning that cultural intermingling was indeed taking place between two groups. How is that proof of invasion?

Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[American_Millenium]

@American_Millenium Languages are spread through migration and intermingling, not through mere Invasion. The emperors of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire spoke Turkic and Persian. Any guesses how many Indians speak these languages?

I'm sorry, did you seriously just state that languages don't spread through invasion? REALLY?

The entire history of Indo-European languages is predicated upon eliminating the pre-Indo-European people or forcing them to assimilate into the Indo-European culture; that is the very basis of the genetic, linguistic, and cultural history of Europe, and the spread of Indo-European languages.

This is the way Turkic languages spread throughout Central Asia; the way Arabic spread throughout North Africa and the Levant; the way Phoenician spread throughout Berber communities; the way Mongolic spread throughout North Asia; I can keep going on and on about invasions and superstratums, but I hope you already get the idea.

The Indo-Aryans depopulated North India and the Dravidian's retreated southward to establish new communities. That is the current scientific consensus and if you want to refute it then by all means do so.

How can you be sure that an invasion took place when no evidence is forthcoming? Sanskrit also borrowed from an already existing Indian language, meaning that cultural intermingling was indeed taking place between two groups. How is that proof of invasion?

Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you bother to read anything I sourced? I guess not. The genetic evidence alone is irrefutable. Read first, and then talk later if you still disagree with modern scientific opinion.

Also, what does cultural intermingling have to do with anything? What do substratums in languages have to do with anything? They are wholly irrelevant to the topic. The Indo-Aryans invaded and dominated with their languages; that much is clear. The fact that some words and phrases were taken from native Dravidian languages into modern Indian parlance does nothing whatsoever to refute the modern scientific consensus.

Some words from Etruscan exist in Indo-European languages; does that somehow refute the idea that Indo-Europeans invaded Europe? It makes no sense! And it's completely off-topic and has nothing to do with anything!

 

[Indischer]

I'm sorry, did you seriously just state that languages don't spread through invasion? REALLY?

The entire history of Indo-European languages is predicated upon eliminating the pre-Indo-European people or forcing them to assimilate into the Indo-European culture; that is the very basis of the genetic, linguistic, and cultural history of Europe, and the spread of Indo-European languages.

This is the way Turkic languages spread throughout Central Asia; the way Arabic spread throughout North Africa and the Levant; the way Phoenician spread throughout Berber communities; the way Mongolic spread throughout North Asia; I can keep going on and on about invasions and superstratums, but I hope you already get the idea.

The Indo-Aryans depopulated North India and the Dravidian's retreated southward to establish new communities. That is the current scientific consensus and if you want to refute it then by all means do so.



Did you bother to read anything I sourced? I guess not. The genetic evidence alone is irrefutable. Read first, and then talk later if you still disagree with modern scientific opinion.

Also, what does cultural intermingling have to do with anything? What do substratums in languages have to do with anything? They are wholly irrelevant to the topic. The Indo-Aryans invaded and dominated with their languages; that much is clear. The fact that some words and phrases were taken from native Dravidian languages into modern Indian parlance does nothing whatsoever to refute the modern scientific consensus.

Some words from Etruscan exist in Indo-European languages; does that somehow refute the idea the Indo-Europeans invaded Europe? It makes no sense! And it's completely off-topic and has nothing to do with anything!

Who is refuting that we share genetic heritage with Indo-European people? We are only stating that the assimilation was due to migration, not due to invasion.

Instead of all this bluster, just give me one credible link which emphatically states an Aryan Invasion occured over India.

 

[American_Millenium]

Who is refuting that we share genetic heritage with Indo-European people? We are only stating that the assimilation was due to migration, not due to invasion.

Oh, I thought you were stating that...

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, but you seem to suggest that there was peaceful co-habitation instead of violence. Is that correct?

Instead of all this bluster, just give me one credible link which emphatically states an Aryan Invasion occured over India.

Well, you are right that there is no overwhelming consensus on that specific point. I can provide links that state there was an invasion if you wish:

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.full

A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia

Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure

This is the key right here:

This finding alone does not rule out the possibility of an elitist and/or male-predominant Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent as in fact the patterns of historical conquest and migration are ultimately reflected in terms of sex-biased admixture, with the mitochondrial heritage being more stable and of more local origin and the Y-chromosomal heritage reflecting an external influence upon the population genetic structure, as can be seen in not only such regions as South Asia, but also in such regions as Northeastern Africa (Semitic Y chromosomes vs. Niger-Kordofanian mtDNA) and Latin America (Iberian Y chromosomes vs. Amerindian mtDNA). Furthermore, the majority of researchers have found significant evidence in support of Indo-European migration and even "elite dominance" of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, usually pointing to three separate lines of evidence:

• the previously widespread distribution of Dravidian speakers, now confined to the south of India;
• the fact that upper caste Brahmins share a close genetic affinity with West Eurasians, whereas low caste Indians tend to have more in common with aboriginals or East Asians;
• and the comparatively recent introgression of West Eurasian DNA into the aboriginal population of the post-Neolithic Indo-Gangetic plain.

 

[Indischer]

@American_Millenium Yes, I am suggesting that Tribes from Central Asia migrated to India under far more peaceful circumstances. And this migration wasn't a one-time affair. They must've come in waves over the course of one or two centuries at least.

Since our genetic links and linguistic links are on the basis of hard evidence, I suggest till the time any such conclusive evidence of an invasion is found, you refrain from trying to sell us that theory.

 

[Chronos]

@American_Millenium Yes, I am suggesting that Tribes from Central Asia migrated to India under far more peaceful circumstances. And this migration wasn't a one-time affair. They must've come in waves over the course of one or two centuries at least.

Since our genetic links and linguistic links are on the basis of hard evidence, I suggest till the time any such conclusive evidence of an invasion is found, you refrain from trying to sell us that theory.

More than the theory, it is the intention behind the theory we should be wary of.

 

[American_Millenium]

@American_Millenium Yes, I am suggesting that Tribes from Central Asia migrated to India under far more peaceful circumstances. And this migration wasn't a one-time affair. They must've come in waves over the course of one or two centuries at least.

Since our genetic links and linguistic links are on the basis of hard evidence, I suggest till the time any such conclusive evidence of an invasion is found, you refrain from trying to sell us that theory.

You're the one that seems confused.

The distinction between invasion and peaceful cultural diffusion was largely irrelevant to the main point I was making.

Whether they went peacefully or not doesn't change the fact that they did in fact go. From now on I'll use the term "Indo-Aryan migration" instead of invasion if it makes you feel any better, but it doesn't change the fact that the genetic evidence indicates an invasion.