Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Iran=Aryan=Nazi? Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 05:52 |
Except that I thought that you (you personally not necessarily all Indians) think the movement was out of India rather than into it.
It doesn't really matter whether it was a racial migration or a cultural expansion or a religious one[1] or bits of all three, it does seem that the 'Aryans' racially similar or not, expanded outwards in all directions from either north of south of the Black Sea.
[1] It does seem the Aryans shared common religious beliefs as well as common language.
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 06:26 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Except that I thought that you (you personally not necessarily all Indians) think the movement was out of India rather than into it.
It doesn't really matter whether it was a racial migration or a cultural expansion or a religious one[1] or bits of all three, it does seem that the 'Aryans' racially similar or not, expanded outwards in all directions from either north of south of the Black Sea.
[1] It does seem the Aryans shared common religious beliefs as well as common language. |
We don't belive in the theory of outward migration from India. The linguistic similarities noticed are a result of cultural influences.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 09:52 |
Cultural influences, Vivek? So you're telling us that the cultural influence of India was so strong that people as far away as Ireland forgot their own languages and took up languages derived from Sanskrit? You don't think that this is far-fetched?
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 01:24 |
No it is not far fetched. Isn't English taking ovcer all over the world. I don't know your nationality, but don't you find words similiar to , from other languages in your language. Did'nt Latin influence the European languages.
Is'nt the American culture taking over as the primary culture across the world ?
The Aryan invasion theory was a propoganda devised by the British / Westerners to justifyu theior superiority over the eastern populations & it's a big fallacy. It has already been proved a hypothesis.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 07:09 |
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma
No it is not far fetched. Isn't English taking ovcer all over the world.
|
Mostly because the British went all over the world. And anyway, communications are a bit more global today than they were four or five millenia ago.
Personally I think the religious traces are more interesting than linguistic/racial ones (in this particular case).
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 07:42 |
The Aryan invasion theory was a propoganda devised by the British / Westerners to justifyu theior superiority over the eastern populations & it's a big fallacy. It has already been proved a hypothesis.
|
Nothing personal, you certainly seem to be very knowledgeable about the antropology, archaeology and history of your country but I hardly think that's true- there is simply tonnes of evidence to suggest that people from the north called the Aryans invaded India! How about Mondjeno-Djaro (If that's how you spell it). I don't want to get back into the argument that we had earlier, an my response is nothing to do with me being a limey, but i've heard lots of offical sources about Aryan civilization in India. I don't believe, however (unlike the British colonials) that the Aryans had any strong relation to the europeans, but Aryan civilization seems to be very prominently known about (at least over here, anyway) in standard history information
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 07:58 |
Would you belive if I told you that even the chinese kings were called Arya by Indians ? Even the mongoloid noble people were addressed as Aryas. & fair, blond, nordic people were called Anaryas (not Arya) because they were not noble.
It is like saying that England was populated by a race of Sirs.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 10:10 |
Prior to the Aryanisation from Central Asia, there was a continuum of languages from SE Iran all the way to India.
Elamite-Harrapan-Dravidian
The Indics supplanted and assimiltated, to a large degree, the sub-continental Dravidians, the Persians, and in Northern Iran the Medeans vrs the remnants of the Hurrians and Kassites, supplanted and assimilated the Elamites and the Sakas supplanted the Harrapans.
That's how it happened.
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 10:27 |
Vivek, I suggest you learn a little bit about general linguistics. Yes, English is important now and serves as a lingua franca. Lots of languages are borrowing from it. But the extent of the borrowing is limited to specialized words related to technology, business and entertainment. One has to look at words that are used all the time, such as mother/father, numbers, verbs like eating, walking, body parts such as head or hand. These are the core words upon which linguists base their assesment upon whether languages are related, because they very seldom are replaced in a language and if one finds languages with these words sharing a root, then those languages are likely related.
Let's look at Latin, as an example. The Romance languages of Europe (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, Catalan, Romanche and Provencal) are all descended from it, in the same way that Hindi or Bengali are descended from Sanskrit. Many other European languages have also been influenced by Latin (because it was the language of the Church and of intellectual activity for more than 1000 years), but the extent of the borrowing is limited to outside the core words. Thus, even if English has about 50% of its words derived from Latin (often via French), its core words are Germanic, so it is considered a Germanic language. In English one still says head, not testa, one says hand not mano, one says son not fili, and so on. Whatever the intense radiating power of Latin was upon Germanic languages (and we're talking about 600 years side by side, and then an additional 1000 years of Latin being the language of learning), it still has not managed to modify these core words. So, if 1600 years of intense, very up-close cultural radiation from Latin has still not managed to change the core of Germanic languages, how could Sanskrit change all European languages through cultural radiation at such a distance?
So what I'm trying to say is that cultural radiating power can never fully explain the fact that Indian, Iranian and European languages are related, so that core words are often similar. Something more had to occur, and as far as we know, the only thing that would account for it is a common origin for these languages. Given the very wide spread of these languages, the next conclusion is that a migration and probable conquest must have occured from the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans, for them to have spread over such a huge area. The original homeland could have never been as big as the extent of these languages is now, because languages quickly change, and we wouldn't notice such similarities. Now, this may have been manipulated by 19th century European historians, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no other explanation than a common origin for these languages, and hence there must have been a migration in the past. Whether the Indo-Europeans were conquerors or simply overwhelming migrants is another discussion.
Linguists have analyzed the preserved common words of Indo-European languages relating to geography, animals and plants. The idea is that these words can tell us what the characteristics of the Indo-European original homeland were. To give you an example, if these people had never seen a desert or a leopard, then they wouldn't have a word for it. So by process of elimination, based on these common words, linguists have determined that the original homeland must have been in some area which is mostly plains, is temperate and is near a sea (among other characteristics). Further examination has determined that this homeland must have been either to the north of the Black Sea, somewhere around the Caspian Sea or in Anatolia. This happened to play quite well in the hands of racist historians, because it meant that there was a good likelyhood that the original Indo-Europeans were white. But the fact that these historians were racist does not automatically place the location of that homeland somewhere else, does it now?
As far as the "Arya", doesn't that simply mean noble? In Greek as well (another Indo-European language), the word for noble is "arista": hence the word aristocrat in many European languages today.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 10:47 |
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 05:03 |
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma
Would you belive if I told you that even the chinese kings were called Arya by Indians ?
|
Certainly I would believe you. I just wouldn't see that it was relevant.
Even the mongoloid noble people were addressed as Aryas. & fair, blond, nordic people were called Anaryas (not Arya) because they were not noble.
It is like saying that England was populated by a race of Sirs. |
'Lords' would be closer, I guess. But so what? Words can have more than one meaning. 'Rus' used to be Scandinavian, and is probably vaguely with 'rousse' and 'russet'. But Russians certainly aren't Scandinavians, and not many of them have red hair.
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 05:27 |
decebel I agree with most of the reasoning you give, but the problem is that the Indian history or mythology or religion or culture, tradition, folklore (which is the most extensive, ancient & detailed description of events in the past records everything, even minute details like what a person should eat or wear or how he should walk but does not have any mention of an arya migration into India). Amongst these surprising intricated details it is impossible to belive that somebody could miss out something as great as a migration of the type the AIT makes out to be.
The term arya, arya belief, arya people, their way of living is not missing, it is discussed in great detail but there is no reference to the term Arya as a race or a linguistic group.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 05:43 |
With regard to Decebal's piece, which I would agree with, it's true that subjugated races quite often adopt the language of the conquerors; so do races that have been turned into a minority by migration. So the fact that groups speak a common language (or versions of a common language) doesn't necessarily indicate a racial link.
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 07:57 |
The Indian state of Nagaland today has English as the official & unofficial spoken language. After theri conversion to Christianity, they started studying in Missionary schools & have completely forgotten their Tibetan language. All the people here are mongoloid & speak English as their mother tongue.
Now if somebody were to look at their literature of linguistics, they would be classified as racially pure migrants from England as their language is not similiar to english. It is English itself.
The Andamanese of India are also loosing their language.
Many other tribes of India have totally lost their language.
I for one am not able to speak in my own language, but am very fluent with others.
Linguistic similarity is at bestg an idicator of influence, not mass migration
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 08:02 |
Even conquerors don't effect mass migration most of the times. Theyu get localized over just a few generations. Mughals linked them to mongols, because mongols were great conquerors, they themseves were turko-iranians, who adopted the Iranian customs when they came to india. Within just two generations they became an Indian race. From Akbar onwards, practically all the important mughal kings were born of Indian women. The same is the history of Mongols everywhere else.
Famines & natural conditions can however bring about such migrations
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Joinville
Consul
Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 353
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 17:07 |
About Indo-european languages being as widespread as they are:
One current hypothesis latches on to the functional aspect of language. I.e. it's adoption, dropping an older language, can result from a change in subsistance pattern.
The theory is that indoeuropean languages were adopted in Europe from the east as they adopted agriculture. The language was the means of communicating this technology.
The theory has the beauty of offering an explanation why certain European groups stuck to the old languages, like the Basque or the Sami; these people simply lived in environments where agriculture was too impractical, either in mountains or in the deep, arctic north where farming is near impossible anyway.
Like everything about European pre-history its a pretty much unverifiable theory. It's consistent with anthropological observation though. Life-style changes can also result in radical linguistic change.
|
One must not insult the future.
|
|
Khashayarshah
Janissary
Joined: 31-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 19:12 |
the government are racist to bahai's, jews, and dont care about history. but the persians did come from aryan civilization.
|
Who is the real fool? the man who says what to do, or the man that follows him?
|
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 17:54 |
aryan is a kind of a mixed milk and yogourt also...
|
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 18:28 |
I think the problem LaGolf may be having is that some Iranians outside Iran, a small minority among Persian non-Muslim community, they see Islam as terrible, Arabs and Jews as Evil, they think they're Aryan's so this make's them buddies with the white folk they now live with in addition to this White Supremacist Groups keen to exploit every avenue have been trying to feed this propoganda.
However, LaGolf I'd like to point out that this tiny minute group of ignorant people do not represent Iran, they don't even have a movement or voice in Iran, they are nothing to do with Iranians or Iran, don't take them seriously I doubt whether there actually Iranian at all.
Edited by Bulldog - 23-Jan-2007 at 20:43
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Maziar
Chieftain
Arteshbod
Joined: 06-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1155
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 19:19 |
I even never heared any Iranian sees Jews as Evil.
|
|