01-18-2006, 11:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2006, 11:52 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Sushmita+Jan 17 2006, 07:11 PM-->QUOTE(Sushmita @ Jan 17 2006, 07:11 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hauma, can you refer me to more of Manansala's posts that have led you to have such suspicions about him? I'd like to be more informed and make up my own mind on the matter. Thus far, he seems to be straightforward. I tend to trust SE Asians as much as
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you go to a mail forum called Indian Civilization on Yahoo run by a certain Dr. Kalyanaraman you will find some of his ill-informed assertions and Austric supremacy posts (of which I am no longer a member). Of course everyone is entitled to their own views.
As for Steve Oppenheimer mentioned by Dhu and GS: He indeed has been an author on some high profile genetic studies published in some top journals. So there is no doubt he has been involved in important investigations of early human migrations. Nonetheless his pet SE-Asian origin/ Sunda theory is a different more private facet of his work, which is of more mixed value. There are aspects of it which range all the way from plausible, intriguing, to unlikely or overblown. So we cannot uncritically accept all what he states.
I do not think we can generalize about SE Asians or Europeans being more trustworthy. But trust indeed involves a major component of shared culture. Some of this indeed shared with other Asians who were in the Indosphere, but they have been distorted by Abrahmic cults. Likewise, the Abrahamic fervor has also culturally perverted the Europeans. "Racism" as a construct has it roots not in AIT or so much in skin color but in Christianity's exclusivist doctrine. It must be remembered that the native Americans were massacred because Christianity made them inferior. Other things like AIT, or skin differences between Indians were coopted later.
Afro-centrism is some thing we need not really associate with. It is definitely not a correct view of African history. At the same time the institutionalized harrasment of Blacks, and their persistant demeaning/downsizing is something that needs to be recognized and understood. So I am hardly surprised that the Blacks are not happy about the whole situation and resort to Afro-centrism.
Finally, I must say we need not be too enthusiatic about the genetic evidence in relation to testing the AIT. There are lots of inconsistencies in the recent studies discussed here and fine points that will resolve themselves only over the next few years. There are ways of interpreting this data that can still conform to AIT, but for now we wait for more data and see how things clear up.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you go to a mail forum called Indian Civilization on Yahoo run by a certain Dr. Kalyanaraman you will find some of his ill-informed assertions and Austric supremacy posts (of which I am no longer a member). Of course everyone is entitled to their own views.
As for Steve Oppenheimer mentioned by Dhu and GS: He indeed has been an author on some high profile genetic studies published in some top journals. So there is no doubt he has been involved in important investigations of early human migrations. Nonetheless his pet SE-Asian origin/ Sunda theory is a different more private facet of his work, which is of more mixed value. There are aspects of it which range all the way from plausible, intriguing, to unlikely or overblown. So we cannot uncritically accept all what he states.
I do not think we can generalize about SE Asians or Europeans being more trustworthy. But trust indeed involves a major component of shared culture. Some of this indeed shared with other Asians who were in the Indosphere, but they have been distorted by Abrahmic cults. Likewise, the Abrahamic fervor has also culturally perverted the Europeans. "Racism" as a construct has it roots not in AIT or so much in skin color but in Christianity's exclusivist doctrine. It must be remembered that the native Americans were massacred because Christianity made them inferior. Other things like AIT, or skin differences between Indians were coopted later.
Afro-centrism is some thing we need not really associate with. It is definitely not a correct view of African history. At the same time the institutionalized harrasment of Blacks, and their persistant demeaning/downsizing is something that needs to be recognized and understood. So I am hardly surprised that the Blacks are not happy about the whole situation and resort to Afro-centrism.
Finally, I must say we need not be too enthusiatic about the genetic evidence in relation to testing the AIT. There are lots of inconsistencies in the recent studies discussed here and fine points that will resolve themselves only over the next few years. There are ways of interpreting this data that can still conform to AIT, but for now we wait for more data and see how things clear up.