[Delbáeth]

You wont find any "White" Supermacists here , but it's an interesting article none the less.

Edit: I posted the above article on another forum, to see what they would make of it. I got this reply:

I've dealt with a lot of this before.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M.S. Elphinstone
Where, also, could the central point be, from which a language could spread over India, Greece, and Italy and yet leave Chaldea, Syria and Arabia untouched?

M.S. Elphinstone, above, is speaking from a position of ignorance, he wrote that in 1841, as a non-academic, when theories concerning connections between east and west were in their infancy, so he was a) not schooled in the matter, and b) virtually none of the evidence we have today was available.

Perhaps more importantly Elphinstone recanted that position later in life, which should tell you something.

The author of the article, by quoting that was later recanted, is deliberately cherry picking history to push a political agenda, rather than an historically accurate one.


Quote:
It was established by linguists that Sanskrit, Iranian and European languages all belonged to the same family, categorizing them as ‘Indo-European’ languages. It was assumed that all these people originated from one homeland where they spoke a common language (which they called ‘Proto-Indo-European’ or PIE) which later developed into Sanskrit, Latin, Greek etc.

More linguistic trickery.

It was established, by linguists that various languages all belonged to the same family, It was assumed that all these people originated from one homeland where they spoke a common language?

Well I don't know about other folk, but isn't that how families work?

Where does assumption come into this?

If someone is in your family, then yes, they are related, and come from a common source, the fact that you might not be able to trace a pure family lineage makes no difference, if they are genetically related, then they came from that common source.

The word assumption is used here to cloud the issue, and to make it sound like there is an area of doubt, where there is none.


Quote:
There is no solid evidence that the Aryans belonged to a nomadic tribe. In fact, to suggest that a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote books of such profound wisdom as the Vedas and Upanisads is nothing more than an absurdity and defies imagination.

A bit more jiggery-pokery, it is the authors own words that they were "a nomadic horde of barbarians [who] wrote books", for him to argue against it is a cheap trick.

Actually, contrary to the authors statement, the average view these days is that they were not a bunch of barbarians, as we use the term today, as they showed quite the grasp of technology, nor is it considered that they were necessarily nomadic.

The fact that they migrated doesn't make them nomads, how many people here have moved, at some stage in their life, without it making them a nomadic barbarian?

The reality of the matter is that the indo-europeans, who entered Europe, had left Europe some considerable time, and it's highly likely that they had settled elsewhere, in the meantime, and were not particularly nomadic, but the time of the migration was a time of immense climatic changes, and it's entirely probable that these climatic changes forced them to leave their homes, due to food shortages, or water shortages, migrating animals, or some other reason, and that was what lead to the migration.

Further more, the "books", did not become "books", until the oral traditions were written down, at a much later date, as any half competent historian knows (whatever their views on an AMT, or AIT), so what he is suggesting, with his throw away statement above, is nothing but a deliberate attempt to deceive, as we're not talking about barbarians, we're not talking necessarily about nomadics, and we're saying it was an entirely different generation that wrote the oral traditions down.

Again this exposes the authors political agenda.


Quote:
Although in the Rg Veda Indra is described as the ‘Destroyer of Cities,’ the same text mentions that the Aryan people themselves were urban dwellers with hundreds of cities of their own. They are mentioned as a complex metropolitan society with numerous professions.

See above, the author states "to suggest that a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote books", and yet then shows us that their written tradition confirms they were not nomadic barbarians.

He's just plain making things up, to fit a political agenda.


Quote:
This begs the question, if the Aryans had indeed invaded the city of Harrapa, why did they not inhabit it after? Archeological evidence shows that the city was left deserted after the ‘Invasion’.

Why should they inhabit it?

Archaeological excavations at the site have shown considerable destruction, why should they rebuild someone else's city, in a location they don't want to be, when it's just as easy to build a new city in the location they do want to be?

Like much of what the author says it is not evidence of anything, but just an attempt at deceit, to push a political agenda.


Quote:
Another important point in this regard is that nomadic tribes do not use chariots.

See above, re-nomadic tribes.


Quote:
They are used in areas of flat land such as the Gangetic plains of Northern India. An Invasion of India from Central Asia would require crossing mountains and deserts – a chariot would be useless for such an exercise.

There you go, the aryan couldn't have entered India, because he used chariots, and chariots are useless for crossing mountains, so it proves it's all crap...not!

When the vikings pushed east they took their boats with them, some times they had to cross land, to get from river to river, they didn't abandon their boats at this stage, they took them with them, of course they did, as there was no guarantees what they would find later on, so by abandoning their transportation, they may well have risked ending up stranded, in an inhospitable location.

The fact that the aryan had to traverse mountain passes, some of which, for certain stretches, wouldn't have been conducive to the chariot, does not mean that they didn't bring chariots, and/or the knowledge of chariots with them.

Remember, when they first arrived this was alien territory to them, they didn't know what they'd find on the other side of those passes, nor whether they would stay there, therefore it is entirely within reason, and is in fact commonsense, that they would have brought the chariot with them.

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.


Quote:
There are various objections to the conclusions reached by the indologists concerning linguistics. Firstly they have never given a plausible excuse to explain how a Nomadic Invasion could have overwhelmed the original languages in one of the most densely populated regions of the ancient world.

See above re-nomadic, this frequent fall back on an obvious "error" shows the lack of true evidence presented in this article.

Secondly, note the use of the phrase "overwhelmed the original languages in one of the most densely populated regions of the ancient world."

First, let's be clear on one thing, the population of the entire world was somewhat small at that time (the world population then was smaller than the population of North America today, yet spread over a vastly larger area), and secondly the area of Northern India, as it's called today, was particularly sparse, compared with some other regions.

His unsubstantiated claim that it was "one of the most densely populated regions of the ancient world.", is simply not true.

As for adoption of a single language, when we look at the caste system, it's not surprising that a single language was adopted, much as has occurred frequently in other parts of the world.

Again, if we turn to North America, we see millions of descendants of migrants from Non-English speaking countries, who don't speak a word of any other language than English, because English was the language of the ruling classes, and so if they wanted to get on, they had to learn it.


Quote:
Prior to the British, the North and South lived in peace and there was a continuous cultural exchange between the two.

This is one of his most strange, and erroneous statements, as the history of India is far from one of peace and unity, the Northern regions were not united until the 4th century, AD, and even then their unity only lasted for two centuries.

This is such a remarkable period that it's referred to as the "Golden Age of India."

Is this indicative of the statement that "Prior to the British, the North and South lived in peace"?

The truth of the matter is, that aside from a couple of centuries, after the 4th century AD, when an uneasy peace was established, the north of India was never fully united, or at peace, for the entirety of it's history, up until the arrival of the British.

Again, his statement is a clearly false, and there to deceive.


Quote:
With so much evidence against the Aryan Invasion theory, one wonders as to why this ugly vestige of British imperialism is still taught in Indian schools today!

I've not gone into great depth here, but as we can see much of this so-called evidence is far from evidence at all, it's is often false statements, and conjecture, then spun out of all proportions, to advance ridiculous theories.

I now have a question for the author, if there was no Aryan migration, how come there are people of different races in India?

People do not develop as different races, simultaneously, in the same location.

Race is created by an evolutionary process, from a combination of events, created by nature, and nurture.

If one group of people were to have experienced identical events they would not have evolved in to two races, therefore they come from different backgrounds.

Now for the second article, I've actually dealt with this article before, in it's entirety, and my findings were published in many places, unfortunately I no longer have a copy.


Quote:
A study by scientists at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Calcutta has revealed that most present-day Indians are the descendants of early humans who began to arrive in India about 60,000 years ago. It suggests that modern Indians do not owe much genetic makeup to central Asians who arrived much later.

I don't think the above is particularly disputed, the majority of Indians are not descendants of the Aryans, although note the last line "do not owe much genetic makeup to central Asians who arrived much later", if they do not owe much, they clearly owe some, further debunking the earlier article, which made claims for no migration.

The genetic evidence states the contrary.


Quote:
The findings do lend support to the migration of people from central Asia into India. "Although we did find genetic signatures from central Asian populations in Indian communities, there are not enough (signatures) to prove large-scale mixture with local populations,"

See above, fairly self-explanatory.

Again note that the genetic evidence does show us, beyond all reasonable doubt, there was at least some migration.


Quote:
An independent genetic study by Partha Mazumder at the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta with colleagues at Stanford University and elsewhere has found that the majority of genetic signatures among men in India are older than 10,000 years. The study of 1,100 men from 36 ethnic groups in India, 8 in Pakistan and 18 from the southeast Asian region has indicated that many of the genetic signatures have arisen in India and predate the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and their expansion in India. "The genetic contribution from central Asia has not been as large as generally believed," Mazumder said.

Although the study, in this case, is fairly accurate, it's worth noting the political spin, "The study of 1,100 men from 36 ethnic groups in India, 8 in Pakistan and 18 from the southeast Asian region", obviously, as the Aryan migration took place in Northern India, which is but one small part of the region, you wouldn't expect to find many, if any, traces in many regions of India, or southeast Asia.

This fact should be kept in mind, when dealing with the findings, the area of interest to us is less than 5% of the entire test sample area, and therefore any results are going to be skewed considerably.

However, that's only dealing with the finer details, in relation to the bigger picture, we do see, without question, that there is genetic evidence that the Aryans of central Asia, did migrate into Northern India.

We can dispute how many came, what they did, and how much of an impact they had, but the indisputable fact is that they did come, and just because some guy, with an obvious anti-White political agenda, posts up recanted statements, and reckons the Aryans couldn't have come, because they would have surely left their chariots at home, or constructs various arguments of his own, that he then argues against, doesn't distract from the obvious truths, and the irrefutable facts, that the Aryans entered India.