+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Unmasking AIT (/showthread.php?tid=572)
Unmasking AIT - HareKrishna - 05-05-2009
If you didnt know how the first european look like here is the recontrsuction of the first european based on a 35000 years old skull
http://www.ecomagazin.ro/wp-content/upload...ul-european.jpg
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev...%2F&sl=ro&tl=en
he is clearly a white aryan <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 05-05-2009
How AIT effects modern India in TN:
X-Posting Stan_S from BRF...
<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->SS, if you look at South Indian history, you find that Tamils were embracing and welcoming people of other languages- Telugu, Chera and Kannada. There were princesses from these people. How did Tamils become insular, chauvinist and takleef types? Isnt against the grain of Tamil worldview? Was it the East India company association that nurtured the grievance mentality?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems like Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Sanskrit were understandable in bits and pieces by most folks of the region, around 1000-1500 years back. I would attribute it to fluid dynastic/sectarian lines, advisors and courtiers spoke different languages and practiced different belief-systems within the dharmic fold, widespread tolerance was practiced to keep everyone happy. In fact, two of the five greatest Tamil epics, Silappadikaram and Manimegalai, concern Jainism and Jaina princes story of deceit, love, war, destruction, piety and remorse.
All this pigeonholing-into-a-box thing and Tamil-exclusivism came about not so far back. The first "us vs. them" that solidified caste-divisions came with Khiljis deep raids into Pandya country. It is not clear if caste divisions prior to the Khiljis were hereditary, but they were certainly fluid enough and respected in many sense, even though that would be hard to believe for the current-day sufferers. At the very least, there was no loss of H&D in losing a battle to "them."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
The more visible middle level castes include the land owning castes such as Vellalar, Ahamudayar (Servai), Maravar (Thevar), Kallar, Konar (Yadavar) and the Telegu speaking Naidus; trading castes such as Chettiyar, artisan castes like Kusavar or Kuyavan (Potter), Kotthan (mason), Thachan (carpenter), Kollan (blacksmith), Thattans or Nahai Aasari (goldsmith); and the servicing castes such as Ambattan (barbers) and Vannan (washermen). The more visible castes among the Scheduled Castes in Ramanathapuram district are the Pallars, Parayars and Chakkiliyars.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pallars were rulers once upon a time who went into bad economic fortunes and social apathy due to losses in wars etc. The word Pallan comes from those who were agriculturists in the low-lying lands (pallam), which was their subsistence after they went down the social hierarchy. The word Parayan comes from those who would beat the drum before a war (parai-saatrudhal). Some of them were accused of colluding with "them" and pushed down the ladder. Their prime job today is to beat the drum before family ceremonies and religious/social functions. Sakkiliyars are cobblers who ate and still eat beef. The trend I see is that social downgrading happened when folks lost wars to "them" or were associated with lost battles in some sense, either as betrayers or suspected-betrayers or descendants of betrayers, or started associating with trades related to cow-products or eating beef. Most likely, someone would dispute this "trend."
The EIC did not help and in fact, did a lot of stuff in engendering this divide. In fact, some of the "folk-stories" about the deceit of the Pallars is most likely myth-making that developed much later during the EIC-days. When the Palayakkarars (polygars) such as Kattabomman, Maruthu Sagotharargal, Dheeran Chinnamalai etc went head on against the EIC, the EIC indulged in much of this myth-making to divide and betray some of the caste-oriented folks. Further along came takleef against the Brahmins because they commanded a far higher proportion of the IAS/ICS/admin stuff than population figures for the Brahmin community. We can go on and on about how the Brahmins were successful, but in one brief line, they just used the skewed system much better than the rest. AIT did nt help matters and it formed the crux of the "us vs. them" battle of ideas which is only now being put down, slowly but steadily. The embers are still there, thats why caste-takleefs need to be, are and will be taken care of.
I used to hold anger at some of the reservation nonsense, but in hindsight, its good to move on and work harder if things are skewed against you. There will be peace sometime sooner than we think. In TN, caste is a hierarchical thing with the "non-existing" Brahmins being blamed by the fake-politicos for anything and almost everything. But most folks and their uncle knows that it is the so-called OBCs that indulge in some of the egregious acts. The area, which was/is now a strong Christian belt, is the prime rib metaphorically-speaking, in fact the center of the Palayakkarar wars.
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 05-27-2009
Meanwhile
Michael Bergunder 's essay on AIT
Contested Past
Unmasking AIT - acharya - 06-02-2009
<b>How the âAryan invasion theoryâ came
to be</b>
As the Catholic ex-priest James Carroll (2001) has detailed in
Constantineâs Sword: The Church and the Jews, European
Christians have, for a tragically long time, denigrated and
reduced the living Jews among them, oppressing them
alternatively with genocide, inquisition, forced conversion,
expulsion, genocide⦠The same history has inflicted, on
Christians, a profound intellectual awkwardness: the ancient
âheroic ageâ of Christianity is Jewish! It just doesnât feel
comfortable, in an antisemitic civilization, that oneâs story of
origins should be Jewish; or that this story should be so much
longer than the Christian âNew Testamentâ; or that it should be
so much more interesting and fun to read. But it cannot be
avoided, because Christianity claims to have developed out of
ancient Judaism.
It is remarkable that this absurd state of affairs has
remained stable for so long, but signs that it would not remain
so forever began to appear in the eighteenth century. At this
time, many European intellectuals began looking for a way out,
and tried to give themselves an ancient âheroic ageâ that would
not be Jewish. Navaratna S. Rajaram explains that,
The humanist movement now known as the
European Renaissance was followed by voyages of
discovery in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, leading to greatly increased trade and
colonizing activities. This had resulted in Europe
becoming aware of the richness, antiquity and the
complexities of Indian history and culture. As Jim
Shaffer notes:
âMany scholars such as Kant and Herder, began to
draw analogies between the myths and philosophies
of ancient India and the West. In their attempt to
separate Western European culture from its Judaic
heritage, many scholars were convinced that the
origin of Western culture was to be found in India
rather than in the ancient Near East.â (Shaffer
1984:80)
At the time, skin color in particular was also capturing
the European imagination, because colonialism brought close
contact with dark-skinned peoples whom the Europeans, with
their more effective weaponry, had subjugated. So the story
these conquering Europeans came up with became that, in
ancient times, mirroring the contemporary experience, the socalled
âAryan raceââblond, blue-eyed, and white-skinnedâ
had burst forth from Central Asia and invaded everything,
becoming the ruling class in India, Iran, and Europe, replacing
the dark-skinned natives just as the modern Europeans in
colonial times were subjugating the dark-skinned natives
everywhere else
Not exactly original.
It was German intellectuals with a nationalist bent who
became most interested in this alternative âheroic ageâ story of
origins, the better to coalesce around it in pride. Why?
Because, for a long time, the Germans had been divided into
small principalities rather than unified into a single state, and in
consequence were pushed around by the other European
powers. The âAryan raceâ theory was a convenient and
unifying alternative myth of origins with which the German
nationalists were able to stir the imagination of the German
masses to mobilize together politically. The theory became
popular all over âNordicâ Europe, but the German nationalists
claimed special ownership over this theory by saying that the
Germans were the âpurestâ descendants of the original Aryans.
As a dominant European power, the British had zero
interest in fostering German unificationâand yet they
accidentally did just that, by sponsoring the âAryan raceâ
theory. Here is how it happened.
The British were looking for ways to undermine Indian
culture and pride in order more effectively to rule India. For
example, in 1831, Colonel Boden bequeathed to Oxford
University his entire fortuneâworth £25,000âto create the
Boden Professorship of Sanskrit, the explicit purpose of which
was to promote knowledge of Sanskrit among Englishmen so
as âto enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of
the natives of India to the Christian religionâ (quoted in
Rajaram 1995:71). More significantly, âas chairman of the
Education Board,â Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-1859)
âwas instrumental in establishing a network of modern English
schools in India, the principal goal of which was the
conversion of Hindus to Christianityâ (ibid. p.105). This is not
speculation: in a letter to his father in 1836, Macauley wrote,
It is my belief that if our plans of education are
followed up, there will not be a single idolater among
the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years
hence. And this will be effected without any efforts
to proselytize, without the smallest interference with
religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge
and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the project.â
quoted in Rajaram (1995:105)1
Macauley was obviously a narrow Christian chauvinist,
convinced of the superiority of Christian doctrine. And yet he
was not so self-assured that he felt comfortable with a level
playing field: to ensure that the Brahmins would become
Christians, he âwanted someone willing and able to interpret
Indian scriptures in such a way that the newly educated Indian
elite would see for itself the difference between their scriptures
and the New Testament and choose the latterâ (ibid. p.106). It
was in Germany that Sanskrit studies were flourishing the
most, so Macauley eventually recruited a German scholar to
make a translation of the Vedic scriptures that would
undermine Indian religion. That he selected his man with care
may be inferred from the fact that it took him fifteen years to
find him: the ardent German nationalist and Sanskrit scholar
Max Müller.
Given that the rise of German Prussia as a European
power was then worrying the British, and given the fateful
consequences of Max Müllerâs work for Prussian expansion, it
is ironic that it was the Prussian ambassador, Christian Karl
Hosias, who brought the 31-year-old Müller to meet Thomas
Babbington Macauley, the man who would become his British
sponsor. It was hardly fitting for a German nationalist to assist
the British in their efforts to turn themselves into an even more
formidable international power, but Max Müller was also a
devout Protestant Christianâand hard up. So, for the sake of
Christianity, and for the sake of his own economic stability, he
accepted payment from the British East India Company for the
work that Macauley commissioned (ibid. pp.106-107). A letter
that he wrote to his wife in 1866 shows that Max Müller took
his Christian mission seriously:
â¦this edition of mine and the translation of the
Veda, will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate
of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that
country. It [the Vedic scripture] is the root of their
religion and to show them what that root is, I feel
sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung
from it during the last three thousand years.
Rajaram quotes the above passage and comments that,
since Müller had no particular reason to misrepresent his
motives in a private letter to his wife, we may take the above as
a sincere expression of his intent (ibid. p.108). I think thatâs
reasonable. Rajaram (ibid. p.114) also quotes a letter that
Müller wrote to N.K. Majumdar, an Indian social reformer, late
in his life:
The first thing you have to do is to settle how much
of your ancient religion you are willing to give up, if
not as utterly false, still as antiquated; â¦Tell me
some of the chief difficulties that prevent you and
your countrymen from openly following Christ, and
when I write to you I shall do my best to explain how
I and many who agree with me have met them, and
solved them⦠(In Devi Chand 1988:xxvi-xxvii)
This leaves little doubt that Müllerâs purpose was to
undermine Indian belief, which is hardly a recommendation for
someone who is supposed to be a scholarly authority on Indian
beliefs, and the author of the Vedic translation that many
scholars still today are using.
In one sense Macauleyâs effort was highly successful,
because the upper-class Indians whom Macauley targeted
responded very well to British-style educationâexcept that
they didnât convert to Christianity. But if Macauley failed to
undermine Indian religion, he did manage to create a new
religion in Europe, because Müllerâs work was a huge log in
the fire of the âAryan raceâ theory.
Though he was not the only one or the first German
nationalist to do this, Müller interpreted the words âAryaâ and
âAryan,â which appear repeatedly in the Rigveda, as referring
to a raceâthe ancestral âAryan raceâ to which the German
nationalists were learning to imagine themselves as the purest
descendants. Thus, for example, âin 1861 he gave a series of
lectures under the title âScience of Languagesâ in which he
made extensive use of Vedic hymns to show that the Vedic
words Arya and Aryan were used to mean a race of peopleâ
(ibid. p.109). This completely contradicts the way in which
these words are used in the original Sanskrit. For this distortion
Müller bears a special responsibility because, âUnlike most
other German romantics and nationalists, he as a Sanskrit
scholar was fully aware that in Sanskrit, Arya does not refer to
any raceâ (ibid.; original emphasis). Not all Sanskrit scholars
followed Müller in this. For example, âShlegel, no less a
romantic or German nationalist always used the word Aryan to
mean âhonorableâ or ânobleâ which is much closer to the
original Sanskrit in meaningâ (ibid. p.110). But the
interpretation of the Aryans as a supposed race was more
influential by far. And it matters, because it was the claim that
the ancient Sanskrit texts speak of a supposed Aryan raceâ
when they donâtâthat became the basis for the belief that there
had ever existed such a race or people.
As it turned out, Max Müller was very successful with
this âAryan raceâ stuff, and the emerging ideology was
instrumental to Otto von Bismarckâs push to create a unified
German empire by extending the borders of his native Prussia.
Ever since the 1700s, when Frederick I of Prussia had
âraised the army to 80,000, effectively making the whole state
a military machine,â1 Prussia had been, as in the case of the
ancient Greeks, though not quite as extreme, society as army.
Though Prussia had lostâlike everybody elseâto Napoleon
Bonaparte, by the time it provoked a war with France in 1870-
71 (after provoking wars with Denmark and Austria), it was
again a redoubtable fighting machine. The outcome of the
Franco-Prussian war was a resounding victory for Prussia,
1 "Prussia." Britannica Student Encyclopedia from Encyclopædia Britannica
Online.
http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:8409/ebi/ar...e?tocId=9276562
[Accessed April 20, 2005].
which then allowed its leader, Bismarck, to annex the south
German principalities, creating Germany. In order to expand
Prussiaâs borders to create the German Empire or âReich,â
Bismarck appealed to the German speaking peoples of Europe
in a way that shows the importance of the âAryan raceâ theory
of German origins:
Bismarckâs famous exhortation to the German
people, over the heads of their particular political
leaders, to âthink with your bloodâ was a[n]â¦attempt
to activate a mass psychological vibration
predicated upon an intuitive sense of consanguinity.
An unstated presumption of a Chinese (or German)
nation is that there existed in some hazy, prerecorded
era a Chinese (or German) Adam and
Eve, and that the coupleâs progeny has evolved in
essentially unadulterated form down to the
present.âConnor (1994[1978]:93-94)
The Germans were learning to think of themselves as
the exalted pure descendants of an Aryanânot JewishâAdam
and Eve: the âAryan race.â This worked so well that even in
Austria, which was then a major power in Europe, a movement
grew among the German-speakers to join âGermany.â For
example, âa large part of the membership [of the student
fraternity Deutsche Lesehalle in Vienna] insisted on Austriaâs
subservience to Germanyâ¦and supported Austriaâs eventual
union with Bismarckâs militant empireâ (Elon 1975:52). This
view was widespread. As is well known, the mood of
nineteenth century pan-German nationalism continued into the
twentieth century, making Adolf Hitlerâs bloodless annexation
of his native Austriaâunder the banner of a now truly assertive
âAryan raceâ ideologyârelatively easy.
German nationalism produced a tragic irony: âMany, if
not most, Jewish students in Austria were ardent German
patriotsâ (Elon 1975:53). In fact, hardly anybody was more
infatuated with German culture than the German-speaking
Jews: âmany Jewish intellectuals were dazzled by the rise of
German power under Bismarckâ (ibid.). It took these Jews a
long time to recognize the dangers to them inherent in German
power, something that can be dramatically appreciated by the
fact that one of the Austrian Jews who most firmly believed
himself to be âGerman,â and who was initially most in love
with the rise of Germany, was Theodore Herzl, the very man
who in time would create the Zionist movement to protect the
European Jewish population from the antisemitic violence that
he finally realized would engulf his people. And yet German
nationalism was clearly antisemitic, based on the âAryan raceâ
theory that exalted white skin, blue eyes, and yellow hair, and
explicitly desired to exclude Jews: ââNowadays one must be
blond,â Herzl wrote in a revealing note found among his papers
from that timeâ (ibid. p.54). Herzlâs own pro-German
fraternity, Albia, soon became a nest of antisemites, and in
March of 1883 he resigned in anger (ibid. pp.60-61)âbut it
was a while still before he became seriously worried for the
fate of the Jews, and despite the eventual success of his
belatedly feverish and heroic efforts to create a Jewish
homeland, his dire predictions would find themselves
confirmed in the twentieth-century German assault against the
Jewish people.
The Western Jewish naïveté before the growing
German threat appears to many, in hindsight, remarkable; but
properâi.e., historically informedâhindsight produces an
exactly opposite assessment: this was normal. Herzlâs
biographer, Amos Elon, writes that âNever was an attachment
by a minority [German-speaking Jews] to a majority [Germans]
so strongâ (1975:53), and yet the modern Jewish attachment to
and infatuation with the United States is arguably stronger,
despite the fact that US foreign policy towards Israel in the
twentieth-century, and into the twenty-first, has been a series of
stunningly vicious attacks, something the Jews appear entirely
blind to, but of which I have now given a book-length
demonstration.1 Anybody who has read historian Christopher
Simpsonâs 1988 work, which documents, with material
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that US
Intelligence was created after the World War by absorbing in
secret tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals, cannot be
surprised that US foreign policy has prepared the impending
destruction of the Jewish state.2 But most Jews have not read
Conclusion
The best current evidence agrees with the view that the Iranians
are a development out of the Vedic-Indian civilization of the
Sarasvati river (later, the Indus Valley), and it appears that
they emerged into their own at least in part as a result of
ideological movements produced by class conflict, with the
proto-Iranians representing the ancient left, and in turn
producing a world-saving leftist movement: Zoroastrianism. In
time, as we shall see, the Zoroastrians would sponsor a more
radical leftist movement: Judaism.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6428395/Aryan-Invasion-Theory-Crux
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 06-03-2009
Is there more stuff? And who is the author?
Unmasking AIT - dhu - 06-03-2009
The author is Francisco Gil-White. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hi...ruxcontents.htm
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 06-12-2009
I found this Russian theory of Proto IE located in Balkans!
Indo-European Origins
We need to work on our own theory that takes into account genetics, linguistics and people.
The proto-proto-proto Indo European has to be in India and spread from there to all others to match the genetic evidence.
Also in linguitics all non IE languages do not have vowel sound that make the speech very limited akin to primitive man.
Unmasking AIT - acharya - 06-12-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jun 11 2009, 04:42 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jun 11 2009, 04:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I found this Russian theory of Proto IE located in Balkans!
Indo-European Origins
We need to work on our own theory that takes into account genetics, linguistics and people.
The proto-proto-proto Indo European has to be in India and spread from there to all others to match the genetic evidence.
Also in linguitics all non IE languages do not have vowel sound that make the speech very limited akin to primitive man.
[right][snapback]98657[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a Bosnian class mate. She was into ISKON .
The europeans have great pride in the Aryans with Europe as the homeland of the Advanced aryans. Serbians and Bosnians have great pride and try to link with Indians with this information.
She had a sharp long nose like the jews/Kashmiri and upper castes of India and enlightened face.
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 06-12-2009
Folks stay with this topic.
Finnish scholar Kalvei Wiik
Finnish scholar's view on Finnish
Europe's Oldest language
Doesn't his name rhyme with Kalavai Vik? Finnish is closest to Sanskrit. The next one is Russian. The farthest and earliest immigrants carry the closest memes. For example the Hindu immigrants to Fiji carry a lot of Hindu traditions which have changed in India.
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 06-12-2009
Please try to read Igor Daikonoff or Diakonov's works on PIE.
Unmasking AIT - acharya - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 12 2009, 02:50 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 12 2009, 02:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Â
Acharya, it wasn't until *AFTER* WWII that Bosnians were allowed into the oryan clique. Until then, they were "Slavs onlee" - which was set up as "non-Oryan" - vs the Oryan "Gothicly descended" (from Scandinavia) Croats. More recently, the Croats are supposed to be from Afghanistan instead of Goths from Scandinavia.
BTW, Bosnians are/were Serbs - Bosnia is Serb land. Did you mean Croatian or Albanian migrants into Bosnia?
http://srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/intro.html
The following headings are all links at the above page
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A short history of Bosnia</b>
  <b>Historically - Bosnia is Serbian Land</b>
  The Serbs settled in Bosnia in 7th century. In 15th the Turks conquered Bosnia. Some Serbs, for benefits, converted to Islam. They are now called "Bosnian Muslims." For more than 1,400 years Eastern Orthodox Serbs were the largest religious group of Bosnia. Even today, Christians (Serbs and Croats, combined) outnumber Muslims in Bosnia.
  <b>For centuries Muslims oppressed Christians in Bosnia</b>
  Chauvinism and hatred the Bosnian Muslims have for the Serbs who remained Christians lasted at least four centuries. As Western books admit, the Turks ruled their Christian subjects by atrocity. Bosnian Muslims, who liked to be called "Turks," tried to out-do the real Turks in oppression.
(This is interesting
  <b>1875 - the Serbian uprising in Bosnia</b>
  "EASTERN QUESTION" The Serbs could not endure the oppression and they rose to arms a few times. What happened is identical to what was repeated in 1990's: The Western Christians did their best to keep Eastern Christians subdued under Islamic rule!
(Sounds familiar... Christopattern of long-distance conquest and domination.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They could be Croatians. I have other Croatian friends and this guy when I met him first; said because of the Croatians Europe is not Islamic. He Said If not by now every European would be praying towards Mecca.
Albanians also have similar views
Unmasking AIT - Bharatvarsh - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Finnish is closest to Sanskrit. The next one is Russian. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it was Lithuanian?
Unmasking AIT - Husky - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jun 13 2009, 12:52 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jun 13 2009, 12:52 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Finnish is closest to Sanskrit. The next one is Russian. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it was Lithuanian?
[right][snapback]98686[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->And I thought it was Avestan.
But Finnish is not even IE. Don't know that anyone in IE studies would say the two (Samskritam and Finnish) are closest to each other when they won't even put the two in the same language group. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Unmasking AIT - Bharatvarsh - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And I thought it was Avestan.
But Finnish is not even IE. Don't know that anyone in IE studies would say the two (Samskritam and Finnish) are closest to each other when they won't even put the two in the same language group.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I meant among European languages.
Yes Finnish along with Basque is considered non IE.
Unmasking AIT - acharya - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 12 2009, 07:04 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 12 2009, 07:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jun 13 2009, 12:16 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Jun 13 2009, 12:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->They could be Croatians. I have other Croatian friends and this guy when I met him first; said because of the Croatians Europe is not Islamic. He Said If not by now every European would be praying towards Mecca.
Albanians also have similar views
[right][snapback]98683[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kosovo and Krajina was the Serb stand-off versus islam. And their efforts *certainly* held islam off from Europe:
Vienna (Autriche) is the near neighbourhood where <i>catholicism</i> faced off against islam, isn't it? Catholic Austria-Hungary borders catholic Croatia (Austria borders Slovenia? Hungary borders Croatia?), maybe that's what the Croatians were referring to?
But Serbs certainly did achieve it.
[right][snapback]98684[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Croatians are closer to German Christians. Lot of Croatians grow up in Germany and get educated there.
Hence there is tension between Croatians and Serbs.
Catholic vs the Orthodox
Unmasking AIT - ramana - 06-13-2009
My bad you are right. Finnish is a non-IE Language along with Basque.
Unmasking AIT - HareKrishna - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jun 13 2009, 12:52 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jun 13 2009, 12:52 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
I thought it was Lithuanian?
[right][snapback]98686[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Finno-ugric(finnish) is considered by some linguists as the closest non-IE family language to IE based on vocabulary.
Others consider semitic as simillar whit IE based on common gramatical rules.
Lithuanian is similar whit many ancient IE languages because its archaic features.
If germans,russians can have their IE urheimats why not the balkanites?
Among the pro-arguments for a Balkan origin are next ones:
-Balkans are situated at the smallest distance from any IE language subfamily
-Near Balkan area have the most IE language subfamilies (argument from linguistic diversity)
-Balkans area was among the most ,if not the most civilised culture from the earth betwin 5000-3000 BC,including the biggest towns at that time whit 10.000-20.000 inhabitants ,whit 4-5 flors height buildings(ancient "skyscrapers").
-geneticaly,the oldest R1a genetic marker is in balkans.So is probable that R1a spread from the Balkans and R1a is about 50% of population in Poland,20% in India,20% in Germany etc).
Language X was the language of the paleolithic hunters .In 7000 BC Balkans was colonised by neolithic(agricultural) people from Turkey which form 30-40% of genetic balkanite population.
The proto-IE language was an off-shot of anatolian pre-proto-IE language family from Turkey.This IE languages replace the old language X.
An off-shot of Balkanic theory is that yammna nomadic people of Gimbutas learned IE from balkanites or even they was an off-shot of balkanites.This theory link balkan theory whit the more classical sttepe theory(the clasical AIT)
Based on genetic studies ,seems that IE speakers are not closely geneticaly related.And we dont need genetics to see that people belong to different race-clines.
Even more intersting is the turkik language family.It has caucasian speakers on one side and mongoloid speaker on the other side.Mongoloids and caucasians was separated for thousands of years so either caucasians learn turkik language from th e mongoloids(commonly accepted theory),either mongoloids learned fom caucasians.
There are 2 ways that a language can spread
1- A tribe have many children which make also many childrens which lead to language spread.
2-by power of some kind-military,economic or even spiritual power,or a combination of all.
By military-the winners become kings and the choosen language is promoted.Usualy this process take about 500 years and few millitary elites stay that long in power.Only 1 out of 10 ocupations can change the native language.
By economy-some language become lingua franca among the trade rutes like aramaic in the middle east.This is an unlikely procees, leading more to borowings but not language change .Similarites betwin sumerian,IE and semitic can be atributed to economic borowings.Similarites betwin dravidian,elamite and aethiopian languages could be atribuited to the ancient economic rutes of the indian ocean.
By spiritual power-Some can have the best intelectualy shamans-priests(vedics),or more profound philosophers(greeks),or more agresive priests(christians).They can bring cultural prestige to a language and make people very receptive to it.
Sometimes all 3 factors are in actions.Turkish language in Turkey was suported by central-asian turk invaders who become kings there,suported by conversions to islam of th enative population ,suported by the common economic rutes.
Because is obvious that IE people belong to different race-clines the model 1 of language s spread is unsuported by evidences.The only posible way is the model 2.
There are unclear similarites betwin basque and caucasian languages(such as georgian) .If so ,the basques can be a part of caucasian warriors that also have make the hurrian empire and posibly pushed the IE speakers further away.
Unmasking AIT - HareKrishna - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 13 2009, 12:15 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 13 2009, 12:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
(But not the Croats - the Hrvats - who are these days supposed to have arrived from Afghanistan/harahvaiti area? So maybe these doubled back?)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Usualy slavs was leaded in their expansion by sttepe warrior elites.First slavs by turkik avars,bulgarians by turkik bulgars,serbo-croats by posibly iranian stepe tribe as hrvati .
Not that serb or bulgarians are iranians or turks ,not at all.Their irano-turkik elite consist of a small number of people in the slavic mass.
Stil this elites bring some cultural elements in the slavic folklore.
Croats as goths?
Well ,if the theory of jatism-gothism is true ,the goths (from Germany) ,getae and dakians(from Romania),Guti(from Kurdistan) ,jats(from India),massagetae and dahyans (from Kazahstan) ,yuet(from China),jutes(from UK) came all from the same original tribe.The place of origin of this tribe is debated.
They are described as being very just and war-like;injustice cause them great internal suffering the legend says.This desire for justice lead them to fight fierstly against agressors.
Unmasking AIT - acharya - 06-13-2009
Husky,
I have one small request,
Can you reduce your posts. I am very familiar with European history,
We may have to take these posts into a new thread - European History since it has a huge bearing on Indian History and Indian future
Unmasking AIT - HareKrishna - 06-13-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 13 2009, 05:04 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 13 2009, 05:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I certainly never opposed it. The urheimat is up for grabs. And so, while the oryans are still total unknowns, I'm all for equal opportunity hypothesising. People can theorise away. (Personally, I'd like to see tangible, documented evidence for things that are claimed to be irrefutable historical fact - at least for matters that are this serious - before getting carried away with speculating.)
[right][snapback]98708[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For me ,the linguistic evidence is convincing.Something happend there.But the rest of the theory is not so.My scientific historical curiosity is on the subject.
You can call wishfull thinking ,but i hope the jat-goth-getae conection is true in some way.My self being a dakia-getae.Especialy if jats have really a strong sense of justice,a feeling also dear to me.