05-14-2006, 11:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->jat is same as punjabi as far as macro view of history is concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hmm...why do you wish to appropriate punjabi-ness to an (perceived) ethnic group? is it to stick to the topic and stave off needless arguments regarding sub divisions or do you firmly believe 'jats,' some obscure ancient clan as some would have us believe, to be representative of the people who have predominantly occupied this area since time immemorial (notwihtstandng the fact that 'jat' may have been a 'cultural' phenomena like 'kushanas' or 'sakas' as you claim elsewhere?). ok so the indo-afghans have been largely endogamous. where am i missing you?
hmm...why do you wish to appropriate punjabi-ness to an (perceived) ethnic group? is it to stick to the topic and stave off needless arguments regarding sub divisions or do you firmly believe 'jats,' some obscure ancient clan as some would have us believe, to be representative of the people who have predominantly occupied this area since time immemorial (notwihtstandng the fact that 'jat' may have been a 'cultural' phenomena like 'kushanas' or 'sakas' as you claim elsewhere?). ok so the indo-afghans have been largely endogamous. where am i missing you?