INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#1 Post by Nirvanam » October 23rd, 2010, 12:29 am

I guess most of us here would have heard of the existence of Neo Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. I am not sure if they are related apart from being color supremacist groups.

I believe these are all manifestations of the History we teach our kids. At young ages of 9 and 10 what you teach a kid as History has a lasting effect on his psyche...sometimes so deep that the kid is lost to rationality as he grows older. Case in point is Neo Nazis.

Their beef is that there exists a race of Humans called Aryans...the Aryans are a superior race of Human Beings in terms of intelligence, physical strength, social tendencies, etc. They are usually fair skinned, generally blond haired and blue-green eyed people. Aryans are not to be confused with the regular Caucasians. Aryans are a special breed within the Caucasian race of people.

Question - In all honesty, do you believe the above described race exists? Even assuming their intelligence, physical strength, and civility is the same as other races, do you believe that such a race of Human Beings exists (or existed)?

ps: I understand the topic is a sensitive topic because it is about race and I am kinda aware about the scars that racial discrimination has left on the minds of the people in the West and hence good meaning Westerners are always erring on the over-cautious side than any other. I guess from where I stand I haven't seen it as such a sensitive thing so please forgive any sensitivities I hurt and correct my wrongs. However, sensitivity of a topic should not mean we do not discuss it. In any case the Neo Nazi theory is being discussed under the context of History and not on its own .

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#2 Post by animist » October 23rd, 2010, 6:33 pm

Nirvanam wrote:I guess most of us here would have heard of the existence of Neo Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. I am not sure if they are related apart from being color supremacist groups.

I believe these are all manifestations of the History we teach our kids. At young ages of 9 and 10 what you teach a kid as History has a lasting effect on his psyche...sometimes so deep that the kid is lost to rationality as he grows older. Case in point is Neo Nazis.

Their beef is that there exists a race of Humans called Aryans...the Aryans are a superior race of Human Beings in terms of intelligence, physical strength, social tendencies, etc. They are usually fair skinned, generally blond haired and blue-green eyed people. Aryans are not to be confused with the regular Caucasians. Aryans are a special breed within the Caucasian race of people.

Question - In all honesty, do you believe the above described race exists? Even assuming their intelligence, physical strength, and civility is the same as other races, do you believe that such a race of Human Beings exists (or existed)?

ps: I understand the topic is a sensitive topic because it is about race and I am kinda aware about the scars that racial discrimination has left on the minds of the people in the West and hence good meaning Westerners are always erring on the over-cautious side than any other. I guess from where I stand I haven't seen it as such a sensitive thing so please forgive any sensitivities I hurt and correct my wrongs. However, sensitivity of a topic should not mean we do not discuss it. In any case the Neo Nazi theory is being discussed under the context of History and not on its own .
hi Nirvanam- I am glad that you have raised this - as I did in the thread about whether there is a Jewish gene (no-one has taken this one further). Racism seems always to be with us. I actually don't think that education (lack of) is the main explanation - I think that it is simply human ego/nastiness, the need to feel that one is, simply as a result of being a member of some ethnic group, superior to some other group. I think that there is a preference for light-skinned people even in cultures where no-one is that light-skinned, and it may result from the fact that richer people don't need to work outside in the sun, thus remaining light-skinned. How about caste? Seems an especially loathsome form of discrimination.

Compassionist
Posts: 3525
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#3 Post by Compassionist » October 23rd, 2010, 6:42 pm

The term 'race' is not biologically justifiable. It is a word that stems from ignorance. All humans currently alive are members of one species: Homo sapiens sapiens but most of them are not as wise as the latin name suggests.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#4 Post by Alan C. » October 23rd, 2010, 8:21 pm

Compassionist wrote:The term 'race' is not biologically justifiable. It is a word that stems from ignorance. All humans currently alive are members of one species: Homo sapiens sapiens but most of them are not as wise as the latin name suggests.
:clap: Well said Compo, there's only one race; the Human race.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Compassionist
Posts: 3525
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#5 Post by Compassionist » October 24th, 2010, 6:57 am

Alan C. wrote:
Compassionist wrote:The term 'race' is not biologically justifiable. It is a word that stems from ignorance. All humans currently alive are members of one species: Homo sapiens sapiens but most of them are not as wise as the latin name suggests.
:clap: Well said Compo, there's only one race; the Human race.
I agree. Thank you my fellow human being and friend. :smile: The term species is more accurate than race when describing humanity - that's just me being a stickler for precision! Just as there are diffrent colours of cats, there are different colours of people. Just as the cats of different colours belong to the same species, the people of different colours belong to the same species.

redsquirrel
Posts: 38
Joined: October 23rd, 2010, 9:28 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#6 Post by redsquirrel » October 24th, 2010, 7:10 pm

As the old saying goes, there's good and bad everywhere, doesn't matter what race, colour, gender etc. A good person's a good person whatever! Though in truth the distiction between good and bad is not black and white (cos we all mess up sometimes)...

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#7 Post by getreal » October 24th, 2010, 11:01 pm

Very well put, Compassionist!
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#8 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 8:15 am

I understand from the replies here that folks here don't think such a race existed or exists, or that it makes no sense to even think about it. So, here comes a killer question that will potentially shake your belief systems.

Why, then do you allow your children and society at large to study a History which actually says that such a race exists (existed)? And just in case you are now shown the stupidity in the History that you have learned and is being taught to your children, would you want to do something to question it?

I am referring to a race called Aryan race...you seem to believe they did not exist. Why do you then want your children to be taught that they did? Or do you believe they did?

ps: this thread will also prove to you that Humanists are just like any other Human Being...their rationality is just like other Humans, they believe things based on the faith they have in who, where, how, it comes from.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#9 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 8:25 am

Reading your responses again, I understand them a little better now...you don't seem to be answering the main question at all instead evading it with moral pronouncements.

Let me ask the question in a different way -

Do you believe that there were a group of people who were superior Humans than the rest of the Humans, that existed in the past and are existing now? And do you believe that the individuals in this group all had similar physical characteristics as in skin pigmentation, color of eyes, color of hair, etc?

Pls try to answer the main question instead of bringing in morality here. This thread is not about racism, it is about History of Humanity...the intent is not to discuss about races but to understand History and to figure out what crap History we continue to learn and continue not to question it. Leave the morality aside for a bit, and let us investigate this in the rational way that Humanists are expected to.

Again, we are talking about History not morality of race, in this thread.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#10 Post by animist » October 25th, 2010, 9:51 am

Nirvanam wrote:Do you believe that there were a group of people who were superior Humans than the rest of the Humans, that existed in the past and are existing now? And do you believe that the individuals in this group all had similar physical characteristics as in skin pigmentation, color of eyes, color of hair, etc?
I cannot imagine that anyone here would think anything like this. You mention that this poisonous rubbish is being taught to our children, but this is not true, certainly not in living memory (I think it was largely German thing - the Thule Society and all that - but unfortunately there do nowadays seem to be a lot of open racists in areas like eastern Europe). British imperialism was no doubt "taught" (and justified in largely racist terms) in schools, but not the open racism that you mean. Yes, as Compo says, race is a redundant term: there are species (and I suppose varieties and breeds, but let's not get into that, as the human species has not been bred by some other species). In contrast, "ethnic" covers a wider collection of group attributes than mere physical characteristics like skin colour, for instance language and culture, and "Aryan" or "Indo-European" was simply a neutral ethnolinguistic term before the Nazis turned it into a pseudo "race"; "Aryan" actually refers to Iran rather than to northern Europe. It would be nice to ban the term "race" altogether, but then we do use the adjective "racial" a lot (plus of course the condemnatory term "racism").

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#11 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 11:19 am

animist wrote:I cannot imagine that anyone here would think anything like this. You mention that this poisonous rubbish is being taught to our children, but this is not true,
Well not exactly directly but things that are taught imply this.
animist wrote: certainly not in living memory (I think it was largely German thing - the Thule Society and all that - but unfortunately there do nowadays seem to be a lot of open racists in areas like eastern Europe).
It continues to be taught in living memory...today...open any History text book at the school level.
animist wrote: British imperialism was no doubt "taught" (and justified in largely racist terms) in schools, but not the open racism that you mean. Yes, as Compo says, race is a redundant term: there are species (and I suppose varieties and breeds, but let's not get into that, as the human species has not been bred by some other species). In contrast, "ethnic" covers a wider collection of group attributes than mere physical characteristics like skin colour, for instance language and culture, and "Aryan" or "Indo-European" was simply a neutral ethnolinguistic term before the Nazis turned it into a pseudo "race";
I can put this belief down to the fact that you are not aware of History. Why was there a need for "Indo-European" term if Aryan was supposedly neutral ethnoliguistic. Also, are you aware that the concept of Aryan race was invented by a concoction of British sponsored History decoding of Indian subcontinent which backfired on them a few decades later when Ottovon Bismarck used this concoction to take Prussia to war? it was only when Ottovan Bismarck's Prussia started gained power in Europe that these British sponsored scholars started saying, "oh no no no...Aryan did not mean a race, it meant a language of people"

animist wrote: "Aryan" actually refers to Iran rather than to northern Europe.
With this statement you are making it quite clear you are not aware of the History related to Aryan thing. Nope it does not refer to Iran, neither does it refer to Northern Europe. recently I had written a sarcastic post on how the Aryan Invasion theory came to being...pls read that, that will clarify your doubts of how the Aryan theory came to being and what it means.

Suppose you want to know what Aryan means...hear it from a person who is the closest you can come to about knowing for sure what it means, that is me. And I know it because I and my ancestors have been part of an Aryan culture for at least 20 millenia.

The word Aryan comes from the word Arya...Bharatvarsha was also called Aryavarta...meaning land of the Aryans. Unlike the British conspiracy (based on racial prejudice) that Dravidians and Aryans were different people, Dravidians (a tribe from the south of Aryavarta or Bharatvarsha) were also Aryans. Now, you may ask how is it possible. It is because Arya the term does not refer to a tribe or a group of people leave alone a race. All cock and bull taught to you by your British concoctions which continue to be taught even today...open a History text book that talks about Aryans to understand the truth in this.

Now, what does Arya mean, then? Arya is a word in Sanskrit which refers to certain qualities of a Human i.e. benevolent, kind, graceful, honorable, just, etc. You can draw a parallel to this term to the term "sir" in English. An Arya was a person who was benevolent, honorable, just, etc...nothing to do with his race. In deed the Dravidians were the greatest Aryans. Aryavarta is a land of people who were benevolent, just, etc. The term used for non-Aryans was "Mlechha". Mlecchas are people who gave up the Sanatana Dharma way...these were the people who were driven out of Bharatvarsha and ended up in the middle East, west of Afghanistan, and as far to the west as Greece.
animist wrote: It would be nice to ban the term "race" altogether, but then we do use the adjective "racial" a lot (plus of course the condemnatory term "racism").
Banning a term does not remove the human emotion...only self analysis and can remove prejudice...and prejudice exists in all of us...it varies in its violence and extremism. Prejudice is necessary for us to make sense of the world and live life. And here I don't mean prejudice as a default negative connotation one.

My prejudice is telling me you do not know the History of this Aryan thing...that is why I have written this post the way I have written it. And this prejudice will remain until you can prove to me your understanding of this Aryan term is not as I "pre-judged" it to be.

Let's go back to the Aryan thing. Your text books (as do ours) very clearly say there was a tribe of people called Aryans who invaded Bharatvarsha at around 1000-1500 BC. Do you want to believe it as the best theory there is for explaining Indian civilization? Do you feel you need to let your children learn this without questioning why this theory was introduced, how the dates for this theory came about, etc?

The establishing of Human History happens the following way -
step 1 - An account of an event is written for posterity by people experiencing it. For ex - our Journos and others write about Iraq War and this is considered the first source of History when in 2863 AD someone studies the 21st century History.
step 2 - In case there are no accounts available from sources that experienced the event, then accounts of people that were closest to the event are considered the first source. Example - suppose Iraq War led to wiping out all Iraqis and all Humans who went there, then an account by you or me that Iraq War happened (although we didnt experience it) is considered the source of History of Iraq War.
step 3 - Suppose an account is thought to be fraudulent or not correct then a theory is proposed as to the real event.
step 4 - This theory needs to be established as the most plausible before step 1 or step 2 outputs can be discredited. Extremely important aspect of any science this is.
step 5 - If the new theory passes thru all such scientific and logical "tests" then it becomes the accepted version of History and hence can be taught to school children.

Your Aryan Invasion crap is at Step 3, it has been shown to be miserably wrong in step 4. The theorists or the people who accept that theory themselves have not given any rational, unbiased, unprejudiced reason for why step 1 and step 2 should be discarded. Inspite of all this, it sees the light of day in step 5.

Do you want your children to be taught such stupidity? We are all rational people here, aren't we? You all are Humanists who believe in rationality...how do you possibly allow such stupidity and royal crap to be taught to you and your children as History? Maybe we can argue you are not aware of this stupidity. But now I am making you aware that this Aryan crap is prejudicial racist bullshit concocted by the British in the late 18th, 19th and twentieth centuries.

How about using the logical process - let's say Max Mueller theorized Aryans were a race of people who came to India from the West and North-West during 1500 - 1000 BC. This is step 3 in the above process. First logical question, What were his reasons for discarding step 1 and step 2? Second logical question, what new data/info did he bring in to argue that his theory is right?

Maybe answering the above will open your eyes to what crap you are learning as History and allowing your children to be taught as History.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#12 Post by Nick » October 25th, 2010, 12:07 pm

Nirvanam wrote:I guess most of us here would have heard of the existence of Neo Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. I am not sure if they are related apart from being color supremacist groups.

I believe these are all manifestations of the History we teach our kids. At young ages of 9 and 10 what you teach a kid as History has a lasting effect on his psyche...sometimes so deep that the kid is lost to rationality as he grows older. Case in point is Neo Nazis.
Judging by the behaviour of Neo-Nazi's (at least in the UK) I very much doubt that their views arise from any history they may have been taught at 9 and 10.
Their beef is that there exists a race of Humans called Aryans...the Aryans are a superior race of Human Beings in terms of intelligence, physical strength, social tendencies, etc. They are usually fair skinned, generally blond haired and blue-green eyed people. Aryans are not to be confused with the regular Caucasians. Aryans are a special breed within the Caucasian race of people.
I don't think many Neo-Nazi's dignify their prejudice with any theory beyond racial stereotyping. The idea of a master-race was largely German. Most believed that the Ayrians were of German and Scandinavian stock. To claim kinship with any from the present sub-continent of India would have horrified them! Sure, their history may have been rubbish, but that is what it meant in 20th century Europe.
Question - In all honesty, do you believe the above described race exists? Even assuming their intelligence, physical strength, and civility is the same as other races, do you believe that such a race of Human Beings exists (or existed)?
No.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#13 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 1:35 pm

Nick wrote:I don't think many Neo-Nazi's dignify their prejudice with any theory beyond racial stereotyping. The idea of a master-race was largely German. Most believed that the Ayrians were of German and Scandinavian stock. To claim kinship with any from the present sub-continent of India would have horrified them! Sure, their history may have been rubbish, but that is what it meant in 20th century Europe.
You are mistaken in your knowledge of History. Aryan theory was concocted by British sponsored Indologists of the late 18th century, 19th century. What you think is the belief of Aryan theory is only a later belief established by Thule Society which lead to the formation of Nazi party. Here is the belief of Aryan theory -

Aryans were supposed to be the ancestors of both white Europeans and the other group which migrated to central Asia and from there is supposed to have invaded Bharatvarsha on chariots (don't ask how they crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and the Himalayas on chariots...maybe Max Mueller or Cunnigham will have plausible explanations for this).

Now, Bismarck used this concoction first in the late 19th century to unify Germany (Prussia). Upon its backfiring, the British had to find a way to thwart the growing power of Germany. So their Historians started concocting that "Oh no, Aryan refers to a series of languages not to tribes, silly". But the seeds had been sowed and they paid the price for their concoction when Nazi Germany screwed their happiness.

However, although the concept of Aryan had undergone a sea change from it being a tribe of people to it being a group of languages (which is also bullshit), your History text books (and in deed ours too) continue to present Aryans as a group of people who invaded Bharatvarsha during 1500 - 1200 BC (how did they arrive at these dates? I mean come on my rationalist friends pls help me understand this...seriously please help me understand your rationality in believing these dates...begging you, please enlighten me). The invasion theory can be verified if you open the text books of school children.

While the invasion theory is sold in the text books, in more Historical studies as you start specializing in History, you will see the books arguing, the new stupidity - Migration..err, we didn't mean Aryans invaded Bharatvarsha, they migrated. Once this Migration was shown to be stupid, they started arguing another stupidity - Huge chunks of trickling down...err there were a series of mass trickling down. Now it is more like drop by drop trickling down...bloody idiots! And at no point, do these great idiots question the base assumption of the existence of an Aryan race....you see it becomes very difficult to accept the fact that our ancestors were responsible for concocting theories based on racial prejudice.
Question - In all honesty, do you believe the above described race exists? Even assuming their intelligence, physical strength, and civility is the same as other races, do you believe that such a race of Human Beings exists (or existed)?
No.[/quote]Then why do you believe the crap about a people called Aryans who came and invaded/migrated/trickled down to Bharatvarsha between 1500 - 1200 BC ?(I assume you believe it...correct me if I am wrong)

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#14 Post by Nick » October 25th, 2010, 2:18 pm

Nirvanam, you have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. Whatever may have been the historical truth of the original idea was, and is, largely irrelevant and unknown to most Nazi's and Neo-Nazi's, who do not generally derive their dreadful ideas from history but from ignorance and prejudice.

I would also request that you do not make accusations about my alleged knowledge of history. Disagree with my opinion, by all means, but please refrain from personal assessments. I find it offensive, and it doesn't contribute to the thread, which, after all, is not about me. Please take extra care in reading what posters have written.
Question - In all honesty, do you believe the above described race exists? Even assuming their intelligence, physical strength, and civility is the same as other races, do you believe that such a race of Human Beings exists (or existed)?
No.
Then why do you believe the crap about a people called Aryans who came and invaded/migrated/trickled down to Bharatvarsha between 1500 - 1200 BC ?(I assume you believe it...correct me if I am wrong)
I don't believe it, and never said, or implied, that I did.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#15 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 2:26 pm

Nick wrote:Nirvanam, you have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. Whatever may have been the historical truth of the original idea was, and is, largely irrelevant and unknown to most Nazi's and Neo-Nazi's, who do not generally derive their dreadful ideas from history but from ignorance and prejudice.
Yep I understand now.
Nick wrote:I would also request that you do not make accusations about my alleged knowledge of history. Disagree with my opinion, by all means, but please refrain from personal assessments. I find it offensive, and it doesn't contribute to the thread, which, after all, is not about me. Please take extra care in reading what posters have written.
Sorry Nick, I didn't mean it to come out that way. Thanks for pointing it out :smile:
Nick wrote:I don't believe it, and never said, or implied, that I did.
So you don't believe in the Aryan Invasion/Migration/Trickle down Theory. Do you believe that Bharatvarsha's civilization is indigenous, then?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#16 Post by Nick » October 25th, 2010, 2:50 pm

Thanks for your acknowledgement Nirvanam. :)
Nick wrote:I don't believe it, and never said, or implied, that I did.
So you don't believe in the Aryan Invasion/Migration/Trickle down Theory. Do you believe that Bharatvarsha's civilization is indigenous, then?
I never believed in the concept of a master-race, so I have never given Aryan (which I previously misspelt. Oops!) theories a moment's thought. Nor does my knowledge of history (such as it is) extend to Indian history. Sorry!

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#17 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 3:05 pm

Nick wrote:I never believed in the concept of a master-race, so I have never given Aryan (which I previously misspelt. Oops!) theories a moment's thought. Nor does my knowledge of history (such as it is) extend to Indian history. Sorry!
How do you feel about such racially prejudiced theories being taught to children in school? Do you have children, Nick?

Also, suppose you were to become interested in Indian History, how would you take the information you read in History text books that Indian civilizational great creations like the Vedas, their sciences, etc were caused by a tribe of people who invaded India from the West and North-West...essentially that Indian civilizational development was not indigenous?

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#18 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 25th, 2010, 3:14 pm

Nirvanam wrote:[addressed to Nick]Then why do you believe the crap about a people called Aryans who came and invaded/migrated/trickled down to Bharatvarsha between 1500 - 1200 BC ?(I assume you believe it...correct me if I am wrong)
I don't know about Nick, but I for one do not actively believe such a thing, simply because I've never been taught it, at school or since. I'd heard the term "Aryan Invasion Theory", and more recently "Aryan Migration", but it was not something I'd ever bothered to look into. It certainly didn't crop up when I was nine or ten. At that age, all I seemed to learn about in history was Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. History in England back in the 60s and 70s was very, very Anglocentric. And very white. And very male. And very royal. And military. I hope that's changed significantly by now.

But I've just read "The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India", an article by David Frawley, who has also written a book on the subject, and now I have a better understanding of what Nirvanam is objecting to. David Frawley is a teacher and practitioner of Ayurvedic medicine and of Vedic astrology, but I'm not so biased against him on those grounds that I refuse to give any credence to anything he says. Besides, there are others saying similar things, notably N.S. Rajaram, who is a respectable mathematician :) (see "Aryan Invasion: History or Politics", Archaeology Online), and most significantly B.B. Lal and Jim G. Shaffer, who are both archaeologists.

I have read that Rajaram's contributions have been characterised as pseudoscience by Alan Sokal, whom I rather like, and as "trash" and "crude" or "nonsensical" propaganda by Asko Parpola, of whom I've never heard. But Lal and Schaffer both seem pretty impressive. Still, I'm really none the wiser. I don't know whether the Aryans were indigenous to India or whether they migrated there from somewhere else. I haven't a clue. There seems to be a huge controversy about it among academics, and I don't know enough about the subject even to begin to follow all the arguments. The one thing I've read that has struck a chord is this comment by Dr. Koenraad Elst:
Anyone familiar with the uncertainties inherent in historical research will be amazed to notice the immense self-assuredness with which most spokesmen for either side in the Aryan invasion debate are making their case. In reality, a lot in this question of ancient history is undecided.
And that's what I am. Undecided.

Emma

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#19 Post by Nirvanam » October 25th, 2010, 3:24 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:[addressed to Nick]Then why do you believe the crap about a people called Aryans who came and invaded/migrated/trickled down to Bharatvarsha between 1500 - 1200 BC ?(I assume you believe it...correct me if I am wrong)
I don't know about Nick, but I for one do not actively believe such a thing, simply because I've never been taught it, at school or since. I'd heard the term "Aryan Invasion Theory", and more recently "Aryan Migration", but it was not something I'd ever bothered to look into. It certainly didn't crop up when I was nine or ten. At that age, all I seemed to learn about in history was Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. History in England back in the 60s and 70s was very, very Anglocentric. And very white. And very male. And very royal. And military. I hope that's changed significantly by now.

But I've just read "The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India", an article by David Frawley, who has also written a book on the subject, and now I have a better understanding of what Nirvanam is objecting to. David Frawley is a teacher and practitioner of Ayurvedic medicine and of Vedic astrology, but I'm not so biased against him on those grounds that I refuse to give any credence to anything he says. Besides, there are others saying similar things, notably N.S. Rajaram, who is a respectable mathematician :) (see "Aryan Invasion: History or Politics", Archaeology Online), and most significantly B.B. Lal and Jim G. Shaffer, who are both archaeologists.

I have read that Rajaram's contributions have been characterised as pseudoscience by Alan Sokal, whom I rather like, and as "trash" and "crude" or "nonsensical" propaganda by Asko Parpola, of whom I've never heard. But Lal and Schaffer both seem pretty impressive. Still, I'm really none the wiser. I don't know whether the Aryans were indigenous to India or whether they migrated there from somewhere else. I haven't a clue. There seems to be a huge controversy about it among academics, and I don't know enough about the subject even to begin to follow all the arguments. The one thing I've read that has struck a chord is this comment by Dr. Koenraad Elst:
Anyone familiar with the uncertainties inherent in historical research will be amazed to notice the immense self-assuredness with which most spokesmen for either side in the Aryan invasion debate are making their case. In reality, a lot in this question of ancient history is undecided.
And that's what I am. Undecided.

Emma
Like I have always maintained here, we choose to believe based on the faith we put on who, where, and how it comes from.

For any "rational" person the moment he learns that these Indologist idiots came up with their racially prejudiced theories based on their belief that the Earth was 6000 years old, would invalidate the theory without any second doubts. I fail to see how people can know this fact and yet believe them...maybe it has to do with the fact that we don't want to see our ancestors as being so bastardly as to have concocted such racially prejudiced theories about the History of various lands...that they were so ridiculously wretched that they could not fathom that a non-white race was capable of a civilization advanced far beyond their own.

Undecided, Emma? I mean seriously what is there to be undecided? Give me one reason why you are undecided...what does it take for you to put your foot down and say this Aryan Invasion/Migration/Trickle down myth has no bloody logic or rationality in it, or that it is total bullshit? What does it take...I'll try my best to help you unlock it for you.

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: History of Humanity (Neo Nazis and other theories)

#20 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 25th, 2010, 3:29 pm

Nirvanam wrote:Also, suppose you were to become interested in Indian History, how would you take the information you read in History text books that Indian civilizational great creations like the Vedas, their sciences, etc were caused by a tribe of people who invaded India from the West and North-West...essentially that Indian civilizational development was not indigenous?
I would agree that such ideas should not be taught as fact when there is not sufficient evidence to support them, and it should be made clear that the whole thing is uncertain and controversial. I also agree that ideas like this have been, and perhaps still are, exploited by people with particular political agendas.

But I think the question of whether a group of people is indigenous or not rather unimportant. We're all from East Africa, ultimately. We all have ancestors who were a bunch of migrants, 60,000 years ago or so. And the vast majority of us have loads of more recent ancestors who were migrants from somewhere or other, and brought with them all sorts of things that have contributed in some way to our cultures and civilisations. Britain has undoubtedly benefited from various waves of migration and invasion. No doubt the same is true of India, whatever happens to be the truth about the Aryans.

Emma

Post Reply