jun 26, 2006
what, ICHR says 'aryan' invasion theory is bunkum?
generally the ICHR is the mouthpiece of the 'eminent historians'. or is that the indian history congress, whose star speaker a couple of years ago was (drum roll) amartya sen, who has no qualification whatsoever in history?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Swami
Date: Jun 26, 2006 1:10 AM
Subject: Death throes of Aryan Invasion theory?
To: Undisclosed-Recipient
22 comments:
We cover achievements of our favorite Indologists on our blog. Stop by anytime.
http://irffanclub.blogspot.com/
our history books say aryans arrived 3500 years ago. when did it change to 15000? the older it is the more difficult it is to gather evidence.
Apart from hardcore Hindutvavaadis, almost no one thinks the Aryan migration theory is about race - it's about language. That there are the Indo-European languages as well as Dravidian languages is not even up for dispute, and the linguistic and archaeological evidence for a group of indo-european speakers migrating into the punjab is quite strong.
Frankly, the only people making a race based political issue out of this stupid Hindutva goons and the equally idiotic Dravidian chauvinists.
Kingsley,
About the Hindutva Goons comment - Why do you get your panties in a knot over some silly blog in some corner of the Internet? By the way your "cultured" and "sophisticated" elites got 20 million Muslims into Europe - by the time this is over we will all see how civilized your European pals will remain once Islam gets through with them.
"the linguistic and archaeological evidence for a group of indo-european speakers MIGRATING into the punjab is quite strong."
Ooo La La - the invasion already turned into a Migration Have you farts noted that people migrate FROM FROM FROM poor and backward countries TO TO TO richer and more sophisticated countries?
If you have any evidence why don't you present it yourself out here?
Since you get all twisted around the concept of "race" you must be a white boy sweetheart.
"almost no one thinks the Aryan migration theory is about race - it's about language" - No AHole go read Max Mueller the guy who cooked up the Aryan Invasion Theory - Maybe you know more than the person who wrote the theory.
How convenient when the genetic evidence blows up in your face you suddenly turn around and claim it was a "MIGRATION" theory - Were you an advisor to Bush constructing one of the 30 - 40 constantly changing reasons for invading Iraq?
"About the Hindutva Goons comment - Why do you get your panties in a knot over some silly blog in some corner of the Internet?"
I don't, and I will not humor you by responding to an even sillier comment in an even smaller corner of the whatchamacallit.
Kingsley - a little something for you from your civilized Europe
“Youths” Kick Man to Death on Crowded Antwerp Bus
Two "males" charged for terror plots in Britain
Most of you guys cannot debate by showing evidence , making coherent arguments - just name calling/intimidation/waving your elite status
Maybe you deserve what is happening in Europe to your elitist socities - I am very sure that you are "european" - that is an insult in America by the way.
virat0: I have read the racist descriptions and they are idiotic. All I'm asking is, don't bring your hindutva "everything started in India" ideas into history just like the European imperialists brought their racist ideas. History with an agenda sucks, regardless of what the agenda is.
"The whole AIT hoax had a religious-politico objective to begin with" - absolutely true. But it's no longer a widely held idea in scholarly circles (even the "famous" Romila Thapar) since atleast the last ten years. The stupid hindutva goons are still flogging this dead horse, while the stupid Dravidian chauvinists are trying to resurrect it in some form or the other.
Also, just because my name is Kingsley doesn't mean I'm from Europe. Just like how we're both speaking in English but probably don't belong to an "English Race", an idea that seems difficult for this group to understand. Well, that's my last, i guess I'm about to be called sevral names shortly, so atleast try to make it appropriate: I'm atheist (not Christian, yuck), Indian by birth and brought up in various small towns in South India (yes, that obviously means I have a biased agenda, because being born in the north means you don't) for 26 fucking years, thank you very much. I have always thought the whole concept of "race" was stupid, because the genetic markers that create what we call race are very, very diverse. Thank you, and good day.
"The whole AIT hoax had a religious-politico objective to begin with" - absolutely true. But it's no longer a widely held idea in scholarly circles (even the "famous" Romila Thapar) since at least the last ten years.
---- Here is a Romila Thapar link from recent past (under 10 years) which I had in my archives. It is clear she is stuck at "information available at the time of independence" and refuses to take any information that came in after that.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/feb/04thapar.htm
She says:
"When one talks about history, one talks about it at two levels. One is information which has to be accurate, and the other is interpretation of that information which is where different schools of history come into play. At the time of Independence, the information that we had on our past was accurate....."
Wow Romila, information got frozen in 1947. Even after we entered information age, no new information came and even if it come one should not look at it!
I am assuming that someone who made such an illogical statement as she has, could not have suddenly turned logical, even in the 8 years that have elapsed since then.
_
yo 'kingsley', for a moment i got confused because my good friend julia kingsley, a brit, is a lurker on this blog (yes, even this insignificant little corner of the net has lurkers and yes, oddly enough, i do have brit friends. generally women, as brit men are total horses' asses without exception).
but julia would never say anything as silly as you did.
nobody is interested in the gory details of your biography. only your ideas and facts count. and on that score, you, how can i put this delicately, stink?
there is absolutely no archaeological evidence whatsoever of any 'migration'. (anyway, how do you show 'evidence' of 'migration'? the eminent donkeys tried for years to show 'evidence' of 'invasion' and gave up since there just ain't any.) all the archaeological evidence shows a remarkable continuity of civilization with no break whatsoever.
this supports my TM 'aryan' 'tourist' theory: if anybody came, they left as little evidence as tourists do.
don't just assert things because that's what you'd like. the linguistic evidence is mostly ambiguous: it could equally well apply to an out-migration of indians.
the 'evidence' for 'aryan' 'migration' is about as good as the 'evidence' for 'st' thomas coming to india: truth by repeated assertion.
Rajeev,
You forgot to mention the dubious theory/study called philology based on which this “linguistic evidence” is provided.
http://daily.stanford.edu/daily/servlet/tempo?page=content&id=19590&repository=0001_article
Oppose creationism
An issue has been quietly brewing in California regarding the contents of school textbooks. In the past few months, there have been repeated clashes between scientists and creationists in Sacramento’s corridors of power, which are likely to spill over into the mainstream. In particular, creationists have managed to influence decisions made by California’s State Board of Education.
It is well known that proponents of biblical creationism object to scientific ideas like evolution and regularly clamor for equal treatment of their beliefs in school textbooks.
In the scientific method, one makes observations and comes up with a hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. The results obtained by the scientific method are repeatable and the hypotheses themselves are potentially falsifiable by new evidence. On the other hand, pseudo-scientific theories make assumptions that can neither be proved nor disproved, but are taken as truth. They do not follow the rules of logic, discard scientific evidence and are based on faith.
A field that qualifies as a pseudo-science and is based on creationism is philology, which was developed in the 19th century. By cloaking its arguments in academic language and claiming to reconstruct human history by analyzing the roots of words in various languages, it passes off biblical descriptions as historical events. One of the pioneers of philology, Max Muller, was a self-admitted believer in the historical foundation of the description given in Genesis and asserted that “we still speak the language of the first ancestors of our race.” He went so far as to write to Charles Darwin that evolution is false because the languages of animals do not resemble those of humans.
Although today’s scientists do not consider philology to be a legitimate science, believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible insist on using philology to promote their views. One such view, which has been repeatedly discredited by science, but is still being pushed for inclusion in California’s textbooks without mentioning its biblical aspects, is a theory known as the Aryan Migration Theory. According to this theory, descendants of the biblical character Japheth invaded India after the deluge and populated it. Inclusion of this theory in school textbooks would indirectly give sanction to creationism and open the doors for future frontal assaults on science.
A recent paper co-authored by Peter Underhill in our Genetics Department analyzed genetic evidence and concluded that there is no such thing as Aryan migration into India. This is consistent with evidence from other fields such as carbon dating, fossil studies, archaeology, geophysics, linguistics, metallurgy and satellite imaging. However, in a letter to the California State Board of Education, Vinay Lal — a humanities professor at UCLA and believer in philology — dismisses such scientific conclusions as “palpable falsehoods” and “alleged evidence of some unknown geneticist.” He avers that science has no role to play in overturning “the long established view on this matter.”
It is incumbent upon us at Stanford to stand up for science and oppose creationism. We should do our part to help California public schools improve their ranking, which is almost the lowest in the country.
J. Sreedhar is a research scholar at Stanford University. He can be reached at jsreedhar@gmail.com.
Dear Folks (except vamanan),
Vamanan Avatar has a right to call people names such as "Mohanlal Yoddha" (and it does not reflect on his upbringing, since He is an Avatar). And in return for being rude he expects the data/info he is seeking.
Also, no one else should do any name-calling to him in return.
If vamanan replies to this, or any mutation of him replies, I really dont care.
_
vamanan
for unbelievably narcissistic creature like you I can think of only one way to respond…. just like the honourable Cheney said on the floor of the senate – go fuck yourself.
siva,
thanks for the word narcisstic. yes that's what best describes this character. long time since i used that word.
and it also reveals his upbringing. his parents gave him whatever he asked for even if he was rude. thus he grew up a spoiled brat and expects people to give him what he wants even if he was rude.
Also, his assumption that people are not knowledge if they arent answering him shows how illogical he is, just like the Witzel he so admires. Historians who cooked up fantasies (ait, then amt) and defendeded them as solid Truth, even in the face of counter- evidence.
_
vamanan posted some comments about me at the other post but it looks like further comments are not going through there. so I am posting my response here, although this isnt where i want to post my response.
------------------------------
"thanks for the word narcisstic. yes that's what best describes this character. long time since i used that word."
[When was the last time you used it? Historians would be curious].
--- Like I am obligated to answer rude people.
"and it also reveals his upbringing. his parents gave him whatever he asked for even if he was rude. thus he grew up a spoiled brat and expects people to give him what he wants even if he was rude."
[you seem to be an astrologer. is my rahu and ketu meeting budhan and shukran today? will i be rich? pray tell].
--- scientist my boy, scientist.
astrologer is you. I am a scientist. your behaviour (which is, I repeat for nth time, "Rude Person Asking for Answers And Expecting Them" + "Rudely Commenting on Others Upbringing"), shows me Your Upbringing.
"Also, his assumption that people are not knowledge if they arent answering him shows how illogical he is, just like the Witzel he so admires. Historians who cooked up fantasies (ait, then amt) and defendeded them as solid Truth, even in the face of counter- evidence."
[I just assumed one thing - you are ignorant about history. hehehe how did you come up with stuff like I admire Wietzel. Atstrology perhaps].
--- I hoped you would point this one out, my boy. It was really an irritant for you, wasnt it ?
My boy, If you are entitled to ridiculous assumptions about me, I AM entitled to the SAME about you.
Grow up little Avatar. If you are rude to X, expect X to be rude to you. If you say ridiculous things about me, expect me to say something ridiculous about you.
ALSO, REALISE, THAT IF WESTERN HISTORIANS HAVE SOME DIVINE RIGHT TO CREATE OUR HISTORY, BY FANTASY, OUT OF VERY SPARSE EVIDENCE, WE HAVE A GREATER DIVINE RIGHT TO CREATE OUR THEORIES, BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE!!!! AND AT LEAST WE ARE NOT GOING AGAINST THE EVIDENCE, AND HENCE, IN OUR FANTASIES< WE ARE STILL MAINTAINING INTEGRITY!!!!
Outgrow the pampering your parents gave you when you were a kid, making you think you are the center of the universe, and the galaxies revolve around you and must do your bidding.
_
Oh you are a scientist. I am on the floor laughing...If you are a scientist, then I am Albert Einstein.
-- Little boy, your definition of scientist obviously is different from mine. Your definition perhaps means only "known famous minds on whom awards and honors have been conferred". That is why you are so stuck with famous people's theories and cannot accept anything from an unknown person.
I will not be reading the reast of your post.
You are better off spending your time on famous people's blogs.
This one is for the common man.
_
And the common woman.
Celebrities dont come here. You have nothing to learn from the commoners here.
And my guess is the commoners here are not ineterested in learning from you either, because of your attitude problem.
_
vamanan,
i do not use your definitions of "scientist", "historian" to be on this blog.
neither does anybody. not even the blog-owner.
make your own blog and invite everyone here to come there. see how many actually want to be on your team.
_
sweetheart, i meant the rest of your comments in that long post.
one-liners make my job easy.
_
"neither does anybody. not even the blog-owner".
did you ask Rajeev?
--- Little Boy, you are STILL asking me questions ?
Havent you learned by now that I dont answer questions from rude people ?
Of course, you can continue to ridicule me and laugh at me. That's OK. Having said the important things, I have better things to do with my Sunday and my bytes than read your posts on Daisies.
_
I challenge an AMT or AIT supporter to even quote one set of consistent historical evidences which clearly proves that
1. Vedas were composed outside India.
2. That Vedas were introduced in India by foreigners to region between Indus-Ganges
3. That any of the recognized sects of brahmins either converted to a foreign vedic sanskritic religion or were descendants of foreign immigrants to India between 5000 BC to 1900 AD.
4. That vedas describe in unambigous terms that its bards were a nomadic or a moving tribe.
5. That a foreign religion was forcibly imposed on any of the hindus prior to 1 Century AD.
No word play and indirect evidence accepted
If some one can identify a literary or archeological or genetic evidence to support the same in no vague terms- then its worth giving some attention to the aryan theory.
Fact is there are none- all of these theories are based on mere speculations without anything to back them up.
I dont have to be harvard professor, to understand the evidence- Because any educated individual can understand the proof of pythagoros theorem.Full stop.
http://agmkonleave.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/08/was-there-ever-an-aryan-invasion-answer-to-sambukan.htm
Post a Comment