this is the kind of headline that the indian ELM puts out.
well, witzel is maybe not quite there, but he's making progress and taking tiny little steps. the first step is acceptance of his error. now that even this fellow -- their trump card -- is denying the AIT i wonder what the marxists and christists have up their sleeve.
some 'miracle' no doubt, like that jesus on a chapati scam, or on the side of a freeway in the us, or on an old cheese sandwich on the one hand.
on the other, claims that the 'people's' 'revolution' is going to usher in an era of unprecedented prosperity and peace and goodwill towards all men; and yea, the lion with lie with the lamb.
yeah, and pigs will fly.
but good diversionary tactics.
thanks to arun
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: arun s m
From: Bal Ram Singh
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:58:33 -0400
Subject: Press Release: Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert
Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies
July 3, 2006
Press Release
Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of
Indian Civilization
Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and
astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in
Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and
its human population is indigenous.
In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian
Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic,
and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe
and Asia.
Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented
by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National
Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford
University in California. Their results generally contradict the
notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian
civilization.
Underhill concluded "the spatial frequency distributions of both L1
frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from
India", referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several
caveats before interpreting genetic data, including "Y-ancestry may
not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome"
Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of
genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is "no
clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into
India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."
Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of
Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued
to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the
time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan
presence in India.
Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs
further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences
in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and
European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion
or migration into Indian Subcontinent.
Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his
theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in
the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries
questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from
other participants.
Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to
claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe.
Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram
disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who
claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of
the Vedic civilization.
Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly
showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067
BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic
people.
Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the
audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan
invasion theory.
Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass
Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of
visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the
field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.
"I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each
other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress",
said Singh.
The conference was able to bring together in one room for the first
time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics,
anthropology, history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference
is expected to come out soon, detailing various arguments on the
origin of Indian civilization.
Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Indic Studies
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
285 Old Westport Road
Dartmouth, MA 02747
Phone: 508-999-8588
Fax: 508-999-8451
Email: bsingh@umassd.edu
Internet address: http://www.umassd.edu/indic
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:58:33 -0400
Subject: Press Release: Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert
Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies
July 3, 2006
Press Release
Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of
Indian Civilization
Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and
astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in
Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and
its human population is indigenous.
In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian
Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic,
and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe
and Asia.
Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented
by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National
Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford
University in California. Their results generally contradict the
notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian
civilization.
Underhill concluded "the spatial frequency distributions of both L1
frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from
India", referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several
caveats before interpreting genetic data, including "Y-ancestry may
not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome"
Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of
genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is "no
clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into
India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."
Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of
Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued
to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the
time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan
presence in India.
Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs
further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences
in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and
European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion
or migration into Indian Subcontinent.
Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his
theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in
the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries
questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from
other participants.
Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to
claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe.
Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram
disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who
claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of
the Vedic civilization.
Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly
showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067
BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic
people.
Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the
audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan
invasion theory.
Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass
Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of
visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the
field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.
"I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each
other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress",
said Singh.
The conference was able to bring together in one room for the first
time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics,
anthropology, history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference
is expected to come out soon, detailing various arguments on the
origin of Indian civilization.
Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Indic Studies
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
285 Old Westport Road
Dartmouth, MA 02747
Phone: 508-999-8588
Fax: 508-999-8451
Email: bsingh@umassd.edu
Internet address: http://www.umassd.edu/indic
16 comments:
avatars/preachers are debarred from using cheap language on this blog. mind your language!
otherwise they will be (rightfully)stripped of their titles, although it was excused in the beginning when the preacher/avatar was still in the initial learning phase.
if it continues after that, the preacher will be fired.
_
Interesting:
"Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the
audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory."
_
vamanan understands neither the meaning of "name-calling" (which he did himself and then preached against), (he also ridiculed me endlessly simply because i stated my views on ait at the other post);
and nor does he understand the meaning of "threaten".
Kaalan is a lot better. He can understand some things.
_
Lastly on vamanan:
since vamanan upholds only linguistics, let us do a linguistic analysis of his "innocent" question:
"Can you point to one article by Romila Thapar that says {the Aryan .... is about race}"
Now anyone which a high standard of understanding of English, (and there are many here, including Rajeev), knows that this is a euphemistic way of saying:
"You cannot point to one article by Romila Thapar that says {Aryans ...race}".
Thus, he had made a statement, (a loaded statement) and a challenge, in the guise of a question.
No one was fooled by that. And he still wants to point fingers at everyone for "not answering a simple question he asked".
Many of us here ARE highly advanced in lingusitics. We know when a question is not a sincere question.
Especially when the innocent question innocently began with "Mohanlal's Yoddha"...
_
darkstorm,
i'm afraid this kind of name-calling is extreme and this just contributes to blog/blog-owner getting a bad name, bad reputation.
using a strong adjective is different from name-calling.
a lot of american slang has now become legitimate adjectives, unfortunately, in american english.
so such words appear offensive to readers in india, but actually do not feel extreme to readers in america.
however, the word you used here is indeed not nice. so please, could i ask you not to do so in future ?
_
Darkstorm,
The purpose of this blog is not for your having fun in your chosen way.
You are writing under your pseudo-name. You dont have to face society after any trashy language you use here.
But the blog-owner is known by his actual name. This blog is meant for a cause he believes in, and he also stakes his reputation here. Any trash written here belongs to him.
So, I think anyone using sub-standard language is doing a disservice both to the blog-cause and the blog-owner.
For your information, to date, I have NOT forwarded this blog link to ANYONE I personally know, because the language/expressions here often have been far, far below desirable standards.
I am sure a lot of people dont forward this blog-link to anyone.
Perhaps you could think about using this blog for a good cause, and not for having fun in your preferred way.
_
KapiDhwaja,
No, I will neither go after Darkstorm, nor after the trolls.
I will simply leave the blog.
I tried many a time to voice my concerns over the language here, over many months.
I have the choice to leave, if it finally does not suit me.
But out of concern, let me remind you that many people would have like me, not forwarded this blog to their friends. Some may even look down on Hindus. Thus, you only defeat your own cause.
Best Wishes,
_
Kaalan,
I dont need your advice to make any choices for myself, I thought I clarified that.
Also, you are the preacher who came here this morning and indirectly called Rajeev a "Rat". (Anyone can see above, in the response to Mahashivaji's comment).
So, you have no preaching and advisory rights left here, on morality.
I also happened to see some more posts from you at the Thessalonica artcile. One was:
"Does anyone know any single person personally who has been converted forcibly by missionaries? I know a few "Hindus" who are insecure about missionaries preaching
simply because they just dont know enough about Hinduism to engage these missionaries in healthy debates."
My response to this is - none of here are babies, we have had first hand experience with Christians, and diverse experiences. LukewarmChristian who wrote here MAY be a true christian, but the college friend I mentioned claimed to be one, YET ridiculed my faith and my gods. He did not deserve an intelligent response from me, since obviously, his religion has taught him to despise Hindus, and hence cannot be considered a good one.
But of course, being smart physicists/mathematicians, we thrashed him (of course intellectually only), until he could no longer say anything to us.
And I repeat, Kaalan, you no longer have any preacher rights here. You cant call someone a Rat, and at the same time preach sermons here.
_
So, before you start claiming ulterior motives in each sentence that some write, perhaps, clear your thoughts. What if Dark Storm or KapiDhwaja wrote this sentence? Would you have infered the same?
--- I have no interest in answering your hypothetical questions, although that may be your way of trying to paint me as whatever you want to.
The reason I thought you meant Rajeev is that in all those previous posts before that, you were commenting on all the people who write here, and calling them ignorant of Hinduism, and preaching your moral superiority to everyone.
So, it was most natural for me to think you were commenting on someone here.
_
So, before you start claiming ulterior motives in each sentence that some write, perhaps, clear your thoughts. What if Dark Storm or KapiDhwaja wrote this sentence? Would you have infered the same?
--- I am interested in answering your hypothetical questions, though that may be your way of paiting me as a bad person.
And anyway, a person who says "I would have liked to call him a Rat", is already guilty of calling him a Rat (in the moral sphere). The only place you can defend yourself with such arguments is in a court of law. Not in the moral sphere.
As for my asummption that you meant Rajeev, it is not surprising, because your prevsious posts here have mostly been dedicated to criticizing other bloggers, calling them ignorant of Hinduism, and calling yourself morally superior to everyone here.
_
Typo correction -
"I am not interested in answering your hypothetical questions".
-
Douplicate post happened because the first one actually disappeared from my screen. I thought I had lost the post.
_
Dear Rajeev,
Most of the times the comments under a blog tpoic are not at all related to the subject under discussion. more than 90% of the comments above dont even talk abt the subject under discussion. People are obsessed with their logic, intellect, decency etc...but not with their sense of discussing about the article...Alas..!! I feel disappointed.
Btw...Witzel accuses other scholars on the grounds that there are other meanings to words like "sagar" but he is not ready to accept that "arya" means "noble " and not only race. Doesnt that show that he is a commie and distortionist?
Surya,
You dont contribute here often, so perhaps your criticism is unfair.
As a commentor who has written useful things here quite often, I had to offer my opinions and my counter-views when I was repeatedly attacked by people like Kaalan and that other person.
So, when people come here to attack, expect some flames.
And you yourself have done exactly that - expressed a counter-opinion on others. So why point to others here ?
_
Surya,
I also think the blog isnt merely an information exchange forum.
The title is basically "Hindu Nationalist Perspective".
So if someone challenges views here, commentors usually find it necessary to respond, otherwise the blog would just be an online magazine for passive readers (who just want some good information for themselves).
Pkus, the blog has to be worth passing on to others, if not, this "cause" is going nowhere. Hence my emphasis on decency.
Otherwise, one might as well think of it as just a sport like soccer or cricket, or some other hobby.
_
Dear Daisies,
how does my contributiong often matter when I make sense? Whatever I expressed above was related to the topic and I stick to it. Make whatever comments you want but let them be related to the topic under discussion.
The falut of our Hindus is this naivity to get deviated by these diversionary tactics of the people of faith. We talk, ponder, argue about silly issues while the semites are advancing into our terrotories in leaps and bounds. Anyway I do not want to preach here as I pressume that everyone is a bit sensible here.
Hi Surya,
Yes, your being an infrequent contributor is certainly an issue when you come up to criticize another contributor/s here.
If you have been following the other threads, you would notice that there were two people who came here to attack (in different ways).
So we were on the defensive. Each of us defended whatever we stood for.
You didnt care to defend, even though you are a reader. You were a passive observer. That's OK with me(and I'm sure others also), we're not complaining.
But you cant make rules for others asking them to stick to topic.
Can we make rules/request for you asking you to defend when people come to attack ? No. Will you accept such rules/requests ? No. It's really your choice.
Same with anyone else.
Also notice that while I was on the defensive against attackers (K, V), I was not at all up against Darkstorm. I simply stated my request.
Hope I was able to clarify.
Thanks.
_
Post a Comment