tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post342138987030142067..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Sincere Open Borders logos: half-baked swastikasUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6837030736310121062013-09-03T11:41:19.990-07:002013-09-03T11:41:19.990-07:00Anonymous 8/14 wrote:
If "historically illit...Anonymous 8/14 wrote:<br /><br /><i>If "historically illiterate" means "masses didn't have proper education", the author is misinformed.<br /><br />Read "The Beautiful Tree" by Dharampal. He had written this account based on British archives to demolish the lie that Hindus/Indians were illiterate.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharampal#Historical_research_into_18th_and_early_19th_century_Indian_society<br /><br />http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/beautifultree.pdf<br /><br />By the actions of the British the true education of the Punjab was crippled, checked and is nearly destroyed; opportunities for its healthy revival and development were either neglected or perverted.<br />- Dr Leitner, an English college principal at Lahore</i><br /><br />Of course that is all sentimental religious/ nationalist nonsense. Historically most Indians were illiterate and those who weren't had read little other than useless religious texts. At independence only 13% of Indians could read, which was then the highest proportion achieved in Indian history (<a href="http://richardjohnbr.blogspot.com/2011/01/literacy-revised-version.html" rel="nofollow">thanks in no small measure to Sunday School the English had achieved 50+% literacy by 1840</a>). However, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India" rel="nofollow">around a quarter of Indians are <i>still</i> unlettered today</a>.<br /><br />As the intellectual giant Macaulay explained in 1835:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html" rel="nofollow">[11] ... But when we pass from [Sanscrit and Arabic] works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same. [...]<br /><br />[13] The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession, wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography made of seas of treacle and seas of butter. [...]<br /><br />[31] ...to encourage the study of a [Sanscrit and Arabic religious] literature, admitted to be of small intrinsic value, only because that literature inculcated the most serious errors on the most important subjects, is a course hardly reconcilable with reason, with morality, or even with that very neutrality which ought, as we all agree, to be sacredly preserved. It is confirmed that a language is barren of useful knowledge. We are to teach it because it is fruitful of monstrous superstitions. We are to teach false history, false astronomy, false medicine, because we find them in company with a false religion. We abstain, and I trust shall always abstain, from giving any public encouragement to those who are engaged in the work of converting the natives to Christianity. And while we act thus, can we reasonably or decently bribe men, out of the revenues of the State, to waste their youth in learning how they are to purify themselves after touching an ass or what texts of the Vedas they are to repeat to expiate the crime of killing a goat?</a>Pipernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10501971438847973932013-08-16T01:51:59.611-07:002013-08-16T01:51:59.611-07:00>I guess the equivalent for you would be after ...>I guess the equivalent for you would be after listening to the Odyssey , you would enquire who Odysseus was<br /><br />No, thank you. The Ramayana saying works for me. I'm Indian too; not sure why you thought otherwise.<br /><br />>If you are puzzled as to why one ethnic group speaks the language of another group,then seriously what good are you.<br /><br />Leaving my personal worth aside, I now get what you were trying to convey when you tried to link the Brahui people with gypsies, though I think that theory is still a stretch with little evidence to support it. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9931567331041471952013-08-15T21:35:02.607-07:002013-08-15T21:35:02.607-07:00Where did you get this gem from? Gypsies speak Rom...<br />Where did you get this gem from? Gypsies speak Romani, which lies properly in the Indo-Aryan language family with no Dravidian features. Even ethnically I believe they have been linked to the nomadic populations in Rajasthan. That their origin is in North-West India is quite widely accepted."<br /><br />We have a saying in India...There are some people after you narrate the entire Ramayana(our national epic) to them, they will ask you who Rama(the hero of said epic) was<br /><br />I guess the equivalent for you would be after listening to the Odyssey , you would enquire who Odysseus was<br /><br />If you are puzzled as to why one ethnic group speaks the language of another group,then seriously what good are you.<br />Also what are "Dravidian" features vs "Aryan" features.Dravidian and Aryan are recognized as more linguistic than racial groups<br /><br />Anyway evidence for gypsies of South Indian origin<br /><br />1.http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/more-on-gypsy-origins.html<br />his study of Romani Y-DNA confirms prior Y-DNA studies suggesting a possible gypsy link to South India as an at least partial Gyspy urheimat, despite linguistic ties to the province of Punjab in Northwest India, and mtDNA evidence that could be places other than Punjab as well.<br /><br />Since the mtDNA and linguistic evidence does not show the same kind of strong Southern Indian affinity, this suggests a possible male dominated migration from South India to Northwest India (probably Punjab) who marry local woman and then continue their migration through West Asia to Europe. <br /><br />2. I think it is more Rajasthan than Punjab as their traditional clothing and dancing resembles Rajasthan more than Punjab<br /><br />3. There are "Dravidian" influences in Rajasthan all the way from 3000 BC since their first migration/invasion into "Aryan" territory and participation in the Saraswati civlization<br /><br />4.Rajasthan was invaded later in the 6th century by Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas,two South Indian dynasties who were the ancestors of many Rajput clans<br /><br />5.The Romani language is related closest to Sinhala ,an Indo Aryan language spoken in Sri Lanka with a great deal of "Dravidian" influence in vocabulary and grammarDr Van Nostrandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72851375205749141522013-08-15T12:55:03.427-07:002013-08-15T12:55:03.427-07:00Some British intellectuals may have justified it t...Some British intellectuals may have justified it this way but the most eloquent ones did not. <br /><br />The most vocal supporter of British imperialism (by far) in Britain in the 20th century was Winston Churchill. And he never justified it on the basis of the Aryan invasion theory. Here is a speech by Churchill on India"<br /><br /><br />You will forgive for being tired of oratory of gasbags like Churchill.<br /><br />Regarding Churchill and the AIT as justification for imperialism<br /><br />You couldnt be more wrong. He did allude to it wholeheartedly<br /><br />....<br /><br />WINSTON CHURCHILL'S SPEECH ON THE SECOND READING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL, February 11, 1935 (Excerpts)<br /><br />https://www.history.ubc.ca/faculty/friedrichs/sites/default/files/documents/Documents/Additional_Required_Readings/churchil.doc<br /><br /><br />"...None of it is true. All of it is utterly untrue. We are no more aliens in India than the Mohammedans or the Hindus themselves. We have as good a right to be in India as anyone there except, perhaps, the Depressed Classes, who are the original stock."<br /><br />So it is pretty obvious what he believes- Indian history is nothing more than a series of invaders coming in and making it their home and India is really a hodge podge of these peoples with no common thread.So therefore it is perfectly moral for the British to come along and set up shop as well.<br />He hypocrtically sheds crocodile tears for the "Depressed classes" -a people which he despised the most due to their inability to assert themselves on the military,economic or social scene.<br />He and other British colonials admired power like heartist/roissyian teenage girls.If Churchill was a woman , he would be called a star f*cker.<br />So your so called "elouent" may not have been as vocal about it but the mindset is the same and every now and then the most benign mask of the Indophile Indologist slips to reveal the ugly Victorian supremacist underneath.<br />To say nothing of Churchill! Who was ugly both inside and out!Dr Van Nostrandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29101041979173491992013-08-15T04:35:59.728-07:002013-08-15T04:35:59.728-07:00>Anonymous: If "historically illiterate&qu...>Anonymous: If "historically illiterate" means "masses didn't have proper education", the author is misinformed.<br /><br />I'm the OP, and that's not what I meant. I guess it was a poor choice of words. I should have said "historically ignorant" or "largely unaware of one's history". The people were very socially conscious but their historical knowledge was a jumble of legends. There was no concept of accurate timelines. A lot of the BCE-era history was discovered for the first time in 19th century archaeological excavations; even most elites in India were unaware of all the stuff that got dug up.<br /><br />>Dr. Van Nostrand: Dravidian invasion would explain the presence of Brahui in Baluchistan.<br />But then again ,they could just be a remnant of the Gypsy exodus of India (gypsy are related ethnically more to South Indian and Central Indian than Northwestern populations).<br /><br />Where did you get this gem from? Gypsies speak Romani, which lies properly in the Indo-Aryan language family with no Dravidian features. Even ethnically I believe they have been linked to the nomadic populations in Rajasthan. That their origin is in North-West India is quite widely accepted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66643472884887067062013-08-15T02:38:24.879-07:002013-08-15T02:38:24.879-07:00The Aryan Invasion theory remains controversial in...<i>The Aryan Invasion theory remains controversial in (many circles in) India because it was used as a post hoc justification for imperialism, and the colonization of India, by the British. Essentially they were saying that the British were not doing anything bad because it was the destiny of Indians to be perpetually invaded and ruled by light-skinned invaders. The British were following in the footsteps of the glorious Aryans!</i><br /><br />Some British intellectuals may have justified it this way but the most eloquent ones did not. <br /><br />The most vocal supporter of British imperialism (by far) in Britain in the 20th century was Winston Churchill. And he never justified it on the basis of the Aryan invasion theory. Here is a speech by Churchill on India: <br /><br />http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/105-our-duty-in-india <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31990203718862270872013-08-15T01:40:47.536-07:002013-08-15T01:40:47.536-07:00The "Aryan Invasion" theory of India is ...The "Aryan Invasion" theory of India is a strange thing. All sorts of places have been invaded by all sorts of people - so there is nothing unique about the invasion of India by steppe tribesmen. <br /><br />Historically, the nomadic tribes of the Eurasian Steppes were always the most fierce of all the barbarian tribes anywhere in the world. Some would balk at this idea and point to the Zulus but there have been very few tribes that have matched the destruction wrought by the Huns and the Mongols. <br /><br />The vastness of the Eurasian steppe, the total absence of any natural obstacles (thereby not providing a nomadic people with any protection from attacks), the reliance on horses to launch attacks over vast distances, the use of the reflex bow, the extreme harshness of the winters on the Steppe (Germans found this out the hard way in the early 1940s; the Steppe winters are in the orders of magnitude way worse than anything in Europe) - these factors and a few others made the Eurasian nomads particularly dangerous in all forms of warfare. Despite their warlike nature, even the Goths and the Vandals struggled to stave off the Huns. It was a very difficult task. <br /><br />I would venture to say (based on my experiences in North India) that the vast majority of Indians in the north (inclduing in the Punjab) are part Mongolic. This makes sense. Even the "Moghuls" that ruled India for two centuries were basically Mongols. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41105774224931432482013-08-14T23:09:43.757-07:002013-08-14T23:09:43.757-07:00I believe the "Veddoids" are now called ...<br /><br />I believe the "Veddoids" are now called "Adivasi" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi<br /><br />These are the original people of India, analogous to the Native Americans of the Americas. <br /><br />You're also correct about even the pre-Aryan population of northern India having a strong caucasian component, possibly related to the Elamites of pre-Aryan Iran. They were probably the ancestors of the modern day Dravidian speakers of southern India, though it is difficult to know for sure.<br /><br />They were invaders too, though less is known about them and their invasion or invasions since there much fewer of them and much fewer people in India in general at the time, compared to the Aryan invasions. <br /><br />The ancient Dravidians invaded lands with vast forests and wilderness, and few people, whereas the later Aryans invaded areas which already had some level of civilization and cities(largely abandoned). It is still controversial if the Aryans put an end to the Indus Valley civilization, or if it was due to natural disaster. "<br /><br />At last , a somewhat sensible and informed post!<br /><br />There is little evidence to denote who was responsible for IVC. As I mentioned, it was mostly likely a fusion of Elamite/Sumerian and "Aryans".<br /><br />It is quite possible, Aryans were there first and Dravidians were the invaders from Iran.<br /><br />Indeed for all the ranting for Tamil supremacist gasbags, there is little evidence for a civilization in the deep south before 1000BC. And these were megalith type civilizations.<br />Ancient descriptions of Tamils are not dissimilar to Assyrian kings in their cruelty,violence,aggression,cult of heroism and notion of king as the ultimate god in contrast to North Indian cultures.<br /><br />Dravidian invasion would explain the presence of Brahui in Baluchistan.<br />But then again ,they could just be a remnant of the Gypsy exodus of India (gypsy are related ethnically more to South Indian and Central Indian than Northwestern populations)Dr Van Nostrandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36422637081019532532013-08-14T22:50:57.662-07:002013-08-14T22:50:57.662-07:00It is also harder to deny this if you speak of it ...<br />It is also harder to deny this if you speak of it in the plural, since these waves of Aryan invaders would continue with peoples related to the ancient Persians and Afghans(like the White Huns, Scythians and other Aryan groups), and we start passing into undeniable history. Why deny the somewhat more ancient invasions but not the invasions that took place a little later?"<br /><br />Scythians may have been Persian speakers but they werent considered Aryan by the Persians.And who is denying the later invasions?<br /><br />The Persians themselves would later invade and conquer, and the core of the Mughal army(a lot later) was Afghan."<br /><br />Which Persians-the Sassanids. They did invade the most "Aryan" northwestern India but were continually thwarted by the darker Indians of Central India!<br />Later your beloved Persians would get their ass kicked by shoeless Bedouins from the Arabian peninsula.Furthermore Mughals werent Aryan but Turk.And Pathans were Turkicized in culture (though not in physignomy) hence the choice of last name Khan which is not IE.<br />It is one thing to conquer on your own but another to be a hired mercernary of another people. Using your logic I should deduce that Indians conquered Europe in WWI and WWII since they made up a good chunk of the British army!<br /><br /><br />It just so bothers some Indian nationalists that their British conquerors were Indo-Europeans"<br /><br />Where do you get this nugget of wisdom? Indians dont see British as fellow Indo Europeans but as white foreigners. Most Indians are blissfully unaware of any (vague) commonality between English and their languages.Stop projecting your ignorance on Indians please.<br /><br /><br />(it seems without exception, ALL of India's empire-builders and unifiers were Indo-European people, often foreign or of recent foreign ancestry - The British Raj was by far the largest and perhaps the most stable political unit to have ever existed in India, with the entire Subcontinent and even beyond controlled by one government for the first time). "<br /><br />Absolute nonsense. British empire was a net destructive force which ravaged its economy,man power and self confidence.<br />Mauryas,Guptas and Pala rule also roughly corresponded to British dominion.Not to mention the Mughals and Marathas which the British simply coopted.<br />And Mauryas lasted a lot longer than the British.<br />And unlike the British ,it was well liked by the Indians.<br /><br />As an aside, the "Jat" ethnic sub-group among the Punjabis and some related groups are sometimes said to be descended from the ancient Scythians(Sakas) who invaded northern India in the 2nd century BCE, and were cousins of the Persians.<br /><br />Persians loathed the Scythians and actually grouped them with Turks and Huns despite being Persian speakers.<br />Jats traditionally claim Chandravanshi heritage(descent from Lord Krishna) and others directly from Shiva when he slit her locks(jata) to create Virabhadra and Kali.<br />THis Scythian ancestry business is a new trend which was conceieved and encouraged by the British.What a coincidence!<br /><br /> Sikhism, which is only around 400 years old seems to have originated mostly among Jat Hindu soldiers."<br /><br />Who the heck are you and creating such misinformation?<br />Jat was founded by Khatris, a Kshatriya group disarmed by Mughals. And the earlier Gurus initially sought converts with that and associated groups.<br />Jats were a peasant ,downtrodden people and didnt turn to Sikhism until Guru Gobind Singh militarized this pacific sect and in turn the Jats<br /> <br />Dr Van Nostrandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33337274371477005402013-08-14T22:36:49.947-07:002013-08-14T22:36:49.947-07:00How else did it come to pass that Gaelic and Benga... How else did it come to pass that Gaelic and Bengali are clearly cousin languages?"<br /><br />Clearly? I wasnt aware that this particular relation was that obvious unless you are being sarcastic! I know you are the comedy guy and all but please note its hard to get sarcasm online.<br /><br />Isn't it possible ,there was not so much a movement of peoples (North Indians may be Caucasoid but clearly not Nordic as the European peoples) but a transference of culture- language ,religion,rituals etc. What is Greek religion but watered down Vedic pantheon?<br />What are Celtic rites with tree worship but the common practices of revering ancestral groves seen in India even today?<br /><br />Hindu's 2nd day of Diwali where the god of Death Yama visits earth roughly corresponds to Samhain.The only reason the dates differ(sometimes overlap sometime lag by a fortnight) is due to India using a lunar and Western world using a solar calendar to observe Halloween.<br /><br />Swastika symbol is really not that complicated, it was used by Chinese ,Mongolians,Tibetans,Native Americans,Neolithic Europeans and what have you.<br />It is not really indicative or any race,blonde,black or yellow.<br />Solar symbols are not unique as worship of elements and astronomical was always present in any religion<br /><br />Similarly the star of David is found even in Islamic motifs as well as Hindu tantra. A hexagram isnt indicative of Jewish presence the same way swastikas do not hint at a blonde blue eyed people as historical illiterates like Hitler and his ilk liked to believeDr Van Nostrandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90418257002328301242013-08-14T22:23:43.833-07:002013-08-14T22:23:43.833-07:00I think it's mostly controversial among Indian...<br />I think it's mostly controversial among Indians. As if denying that one invasion could make India seem less invasion-prone in general (Persians, Greeks, Moghuls, Arabs, Brits)."<br /><br />You are making a false assumption that Indians are disputing the Aryan invasion to prove that they were not invaded.Indeed it is not just false but stupid.But that is to be expected from someone who singles out India for being invaded and lists a bunch of invaders spanning from classical,medieval and modern eras to further his stupid point<br /><br /> Numerous pieces of evidence support the Aryan invasion theory. Indian IE speakers share haplotypes with Eastern Europeans (the steppes). "<br /><br />That can also mean a reverse migration OUT of India.It is pretty nonsensical to assume that the end of the Ice Age.Central Asia would be a booming population while verdant lands like India would be relatively uninhabited and undeveloped.<br /><br />The Rigvedas talk about light-skinned invaders lording over dark-skinned natives."<br /><br />No they do not. They speak of forces of light defeating forces of darkness.Only to idiot supremacist Europeans can this be racial<br /><br /> the Indus Valley Civ., which seems to have been Dravidian, was destroyed by the newcomers and its territory is today IE-speaking."<br /><br />THere is zero evidence to show that IVC was either Dravidian or Aryan as racial type has not been determined and neither has the script been deciphered.<br />Most likely it was a mix of Sumerian/Elamite and North Indian civilizations judging from the style of architechture and religious symbols<br /><br /> There is a small Dravidian survivor language in the middle of northern India - another hint that the Dravidian family was once more widespread than it is now. "<br /><br />Yes but this can also that the Dravidians were the invaders not the Aryans.<br /><br />.....<br />Can anybody explain why the Aryan invasion of India (and Europe) is controversial?<br />A horse riding people with no word for elephant, cleanliness religious laws that are clearly to deal with a land where they are not acclimated to, describing the dravidians in racial terms (flat and broad noses)"<br /><br />Indra the pre eminent Vedic god rides a white elephant.How do you assume the cleanliness laws were there to deal with a sudden change in climate.That is just nonsense.<br />As for flat/broad noses, another silly mistranslation. The word is anasa or noseless. <br />It has been applied to Dasas/Dahyus ,a precursor to Iranian people who the last time I checked are not Negroid.<br />In Indian culture, cutting off ones nose was a symbol of humiliation.Even today , a family whose daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock or a son who gets caught stealing will claim that their nose been cut off in plain view of society<br /><br />Ballo, it's controversial because indians don't like the idea anymore than whoop whoop indians here like the idea that europeans were here in great numbers before 1492"<br /><br />I love how Eurocentric commentators have a problem with Indian nativism but also believe that Native Americans were preceeded by Caucasian types.<br />Whats common to both these cherished beliefs? Whitey deserves to be wherever he wants(Aryan invasion was used to justify the British conquest and the Kennewick man gave whites a chance to whine about dispossesion!)<br /><br /><br />Dr Van Nostrandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30036865513153986312013-08-14T16:05:41.636-07:002013-08-14T16:05:41.636-07:00One of those is an infringement (I guess) of the o...One of those is an infringement (I guess) of the old Lucent logoAlcalde Jaime Miguel Curleohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11801154986193443160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51218175965193182612013-08-14T14:35:23.934-07:002013-08-14T14:35:23.934-07:00/* This likely served a dual purpose: it mollified.../* This likely served a dual purpose: it mollified the liberals back home who were starting to get ambivalent about the imperial project, and it was a body blow to the psyche of the Indian masses, who were (and probably still are) historically illiterate. */<br /><br />If "historically illiterate" means "masses didn't have proper education", the author is misinformed.<br /><br />Read " The Beautiful Tree" by Dharampal. He had written this account based on British archives to demolish the lie that Hindus/Indians were illiterate.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharampal#Historical_research_into_18th_and_early_19th_century_Indian_society<br /><br />http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/beautifultree.pdf<br /><br /><br /> By the actions of the British the true education of the Punjab was crippled, checked and is nearly destroyed; opportunities for its healthy revival and development were either neglected or perverted. <br /> - Dr Leitner, an English college principal at Lahore <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91280648946898852562013-08-14T12:56:09.270-07:002013-08-14T12:56:09.270-07:00The book Black Athena by Martin Bernal is a politi...The book <i>Black Athena</i> by Martin Bernal is a politically motivated attempt to minimise the achievements of the ancient Greeks on the basis of some atrociously bad historical linguistics. See, for instance, this assessment of it by the distinguished linguist (and race realist) Geoffrey Sampson.<br />http://www.grsampson.net/CBernal.htmlPhilip Nealnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47605302051505415652013-08-14T12:41:35.466-07:002013-08-14T12:41:35.466-07:00I dont' see any "Aryans" in Razib...I dont' see any "Aryans" in Razib's post. What we have are Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians, both of whom lived on the subcontinent long before any posited invasion by mainstream scholars. In any case, if Indians are all mixed up, as he suggests, then the politics that informs the invasion (whitey over-lording brown skinned folk) is pretty much defenestrated. Indians are an ancient mixture of racial groups - in the way Brazilians are a modern mixture of racial groups. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31878963392907626002013-08-14T10:51:14.886-07:002013-08-14T10:51:14.886-07:00These logos do not look like swastikas. What now f...These logos do not look like swastikas. What now for the psuedo-intellectual blather about the appeal of swastikaesque logos to "the western mind"?Old Odd Jobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239083003799351747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70335938289775089222013-08-14T09:51:30.851-07:002013-08-14T09:51:30.851-07:00The arrow cross is also the alchemical and Warhamm...The arrow cross is also the alchemical and Warhammer 40K symbol for chaos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48077875223299183222013-08-14T08:20:01.067-07:002013-08-14T08:20:01.067-07:00But, why isn't linguistics and archaeology als...<i>But, why isn't linguistics and archaeology also tarred by Nazism?</i><br /><br />Indiana ... Jones?Marlowenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21748163069645902212013-08-14T05:08:54.971-07:002013-08-14T05:08:54.971-07:00"Razib's summary of the recently publishe..."Razib's summary of the recently published article says that the closest living relatives of the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) component of the Indian population are the Georgians and affiliated Caucasian peoples."<br /><br />But how does this account for the fact that Georgian and the rest of the Caucasian language family are completely separate from the Indo-European language family? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15403660274531532192013-08-14T03:45:28.097-07:002013-08-14T03:45:28.097-07:00The Aryan Invasion theory remains controversial in...The Aryan Invasion theory remains controversial in (many circles in) India because it was used as a post hoc justification for imperialism, and the colonization of India, by the British. Essentially they were saying that the British were not doing anything bad because it was the destiny of Indians to be perpetually invaded and ruled by light-skinned invaders. The British were following in the footsteps of the glorious Aryans!<br />This likely served a dual purpose: it mollified the liberals back home who were starting to get ambivalent about the imperial project, and it was a body blow to the psyche of the Indian masses, who were (and probably still are) historically illiterate. In retrospect, this was, and remains, a silly argument. As if past invasions can be the only justifications for present and future ones! Every country and culture has been invaded, destroyed, and reshaped since time immemorial. The Indian borderlands have offered some of the fiercest resistance ever offered to invaders (ref: Alexander in Punjab), and core aspects of the old Indo-European culture survive to this day in South Asia, when it has been all but wiped out in the rest of the world. But then, making nuanced arguments is hard in modern India, especially in the public domain, and people get touch about the Aryan invasion theory (even though it's likely a fact) because they buy into the 19th century British argument and then go into denial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28862802543265895472013-08-14T03:12:14.908-07:002013-08-14T03:12:14.908-07:00See 'The horse, the wheel and language' by...See 'The horse, the wheel and language' by David W Anthony.<br /><br />The consensus is that the Aryan's were originally from what is now, roughly, modern day Ukraine.<br /><br />He's a Yank by the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26556370749516794712013-08-14T00:12:33.602-07:002013-08-14T00:12:33.602-07:00But, why isn't linguistics and archaeology als...<i>But, why isn't linguistics and archaeology also tarred by Nazism? Clearly, Hitler's artistic side was immensely influenced by the study of languages that led to Jones' theory of Aryan conquest. So why aren't linguists today constantly denounced for their role in causing the Holocaust in the same way that, say, IQ researchers are denounced?</i><br /><br />One productive line of attack for latter-day Goulds would be to point out that The Journal of Indo-European Studies, which is apparently the leading academic journal of IE linguistics, was founded by Roger Pearson, an academic and a far-right activist. It's interesting that that journal appears to have been spared the pariah-like treatment that another of Pearson's journals, Mankind Quarterly, frequently gets. But perhaps that will change, too. Indian nationalists (at least the Dravidian sorts) hate the Aryan invasion theory, which is supported by mainstream linguistics. The increasing de-Westernization of humanities means that historical theories and facts that hurt the feelings of non-Westerners will be pushed aside as racist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74139917776239261652013-08-13T23:52:34.527-07:002013-08-13T23:52:34.527-07:00Recently, some geneticists claim to have found the...Recently, some geneticists claim to have found the signature of the Aryan invasion of India with the distribution of the r1a1a y DNA haplogroup. Basically, its frequency peaks in two centers, north India and east Europe. The idea is that European type mt DNA is hardly ever found in India, indicating that the Aryans were strongly patrilinear and spread their genes with local women. This is also hypothesised as the beginning of the caste system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1508772922958685632013-08-13T23:40:44.953-07:002013-08-13T23:40:44.953-07:00One of those 'open borders' symbols looks ...One of those 'open borders' symbols looks just like the symbol the 'chaos magicians' use for themselves.<br /><br />Basically chaos magicians use all sorts of 'unorthodox' techniques to achieve their goals - hence the use of the term 'chaos' in their title.<br /><br />Just about says it all really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16052053677622953572013-08-13T22:27:56.760-07:002013-08-13T22:27:56.760-07:00From Wikipedia on William Jones:
"Jones was ...From Wikipedia on William Jones:<br /><br />"Jones was the first to propose a racial division of India involving an Aryan invasion but at that time there was insufficient evidence to support it. It was an idea later taken up by British administrators such as Herbert Hope Risley but remains disputed today.[6]"<br /><br />I just put in "controversial" because I saw here "remains disputed today" and didn't have time to develop a better informed opinion on the controversy. So, if you dispute Jones' Aryan Invasion theory, well, I acknowledged it's controversial.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.com