Post 192 is more important.
This one's on 191. Not been tracking IF for some days, hence picking this up late.
Those kreaturs on st*rmfr*nt are clearly way more hopeless than I gave them credit for.
(1) So they are silly enough to use the Rg Vedam 'to prove' that Dasas and Dasyus were black *of skin colour*? Oh, the hysteria!
Apparently they don't know that even their WitSSel has admitted to what Indians had long been pointing out and which other indologists had already acknowledged: Dasas and Dasyus were Iranians. That much is now established fact.
According to the hopefuls on strmfrnt though, Iranians (who, according to the myth of IE, are part of the Oryan clique) are black in colour. Oh, ok.
Then, going by their interpretation (that the Dasas, who were Iranians, were black), the fictional Oryans definitely came in 'black'. But <i>did the Oryans come in 'white' too</i>?
Hey, no fair. It don't say! The racist methods of Senseless And Unfounded Literalism and Twisting Others' Literature To Vindicate Oryan-Existence And Supremacy cannot confirm... Schade.
(2) Needless to say, the desperate strmfrnters haven't yet proved that references to 'black' amongst ancient people referred to skin. But what else can one expect given that racists always think in black-and-white? For them every mention of colour has to be read as referring to SKIN colour. They just can't go beyond it. So even were I to say they're "black-hearted villains" (a common phrase, that), they'll probably think I am calling them African instead, just because I used the word 'black' in there.
Like I said: them racists can't think beyond monochrome.
I have yet to come across any ancient writings that used the modern concept of 'black and white' - that is, using them as consistent and implacable markers for skin colour. According to people I've read, the invention and use of this dichotomatic colour-system as depicting some irrevocable population demarcation was entirely a late christo thing. Just 'cause racists can't think other than in terms of skin colour today does not mean ancient people used the words 'black' and 'white' with the same connotations, implications or even referred to the same idea(s) with those terms as the christoised world has been doing.
(3) What translation of the Vedas are they referencing anyways? No refs given. Need to have refs to confirm all that 'yellow bearded Gods' stuff. I mean, if it turned out to be one of those lame early translations of the Rg Veda - you know, the ones by those inept indologists who managed to do such things as turn the actual mention of <i>an-asa</i> "mouthless" Dasyus (meaning uncouth) into a racist <i>a-nasa</i> "noseless" Dasyus instead.... - if the refs were to translations by one of those kinds of indologists, then it's just another case of Ignore. Deprecated translations reading racist ideas in the Vedas are no longer used as valid sources.
Quick scan and I see the strmfrnters are in fact still referring to 'noseless Dasyus'. That means they are using a bad (discredited) translation source, and hence Ignore does apply.
(Though if we were to go by their oh-so-predictable refs to incompetent translations, that means at least one definitely Iranian - Oryan! - tribe was noseless: the Dasyus. And therefore, if we had to read it such that ancient lit records the existence of Noseless Oryans, I have to ask the obvious again: are there any definite refs to the nosey kind as well?
Tally: so far their pathetic racist literalism has produced 'black noseless' Oryans and little else. Way to go in proving 'white Oryans'! Think I now see where WitSSel digs up his sidekicks from. )
The bit about Indian actors and actresses is an even greater hoot. Indian stars are supposedly due to some Oryan remains in the Indian gene pool? Mwahahahahahaha. Oh that's good! Real good! <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> Must remember to submit that to an online joke-bank. Hope they don't ask for the source (won't look good saying it was from some forum where racist herds gather).
Proof for Oryan existence: some Indian actors are thought to be decent-looking enough so 'they must have some European ancestry', therefore the AIT must have happened, therefore there must have been Oryans! Woohoo. That would make a great thesis! I'm on a winner here! Just need to put in the impeccable references to strmfrnt - where all those racist geniuses have found the clinching evidence: pointing out how Indian actors are apparently 'a bit too pretty to be completely Indian' - and I'll get crowned with Superspecial Honours and be on every journal roll. Not going to happen? How sad. So much for *that* angle in attempting to prove The Grand Theory.
And what a 'compliment' - the typical racist argument: everything that's pretty anywhere else is due to some European residue. Can't prove some European ancestry? (Don't know anything about Preity, so not commenting) Then resort to <i>argumentum ad Oryanum</i> ('the Oryans did it'). That means the rest of India must be more 'Oryan' than the Cinestars then, 'cause there are way many people wandering around in India in real life who are way more lovely than anyone I've clapped my eye on on TV. Oh wait. Many of them are dark or very dark and therefore don't qualify for Oryan status, so scratch that.
Seems I overestimated the loose canons at that loser gathering - now wondering whether the *collective* IQ of the strmfrnt desperados even crawls up to a 100. Umm, nah - just shy of the magic centum.
That would (at least partly) explain why everyone everywhere avoids racists. Not only are they bunch of haters (a turn-off by itself), but next to that they're also incapable of seeking out facts, applying logic or using reason, seeing as how they're particularly challenged qua intelligence, social capabilities and sense.
They were good for a laugh this once, but not because of any intention on their end.
Shouldn't have to do this, as this is IF and everyone knows this already (and yeah, sorry about the bandwidth). But there may be lurkers who don't know better. For those who don't yet know, then -
Stuff on Dasas and Dasyus being Iranian, alleged 'racism' in the Vedas, use of black, meaning of Varna, actual an-asa vs wrong a-nasa:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Trautmann goes over the historical record of early Indology to show how the race theories of the 19th century forced racial interpretations on text fragments which had never been read in that sense before, e.g. how the <i>single</i> reference to the enemies as an-asa, "mouthless" (i.e. "of defective speech", meaning "not groomed in Vedic culture", Sayana's reading consistent with the traditional cultural interpretation) was read as a-nasa, "noseless",
i.e. "flat-nosed" by Max M? then cited by anthropometrist H.H. Risley as a racialdescription which the Vedic Aryans <i>often</i> made, and finally adopted in that version by most textbooks. (p.287-288)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hans Hock ("Through a glass darkly: modern 'racial' interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on ⲹa and dⳡ/dasyu in Vedic society") also points to the genesis of the racial interpretation in the context of the "scramble of the European powers to divide up the non-European world", in which "the British take-over of India seemed to provide a perfect parallel to the assumed take-over of prehistoric India by the invading 'Aryans'" (p.168). He argues that "such notions as 'race', defined in terms of skin color, are an invention of (early) modern European colonialism and imperialism and thus inappropriate for the prehistoric contact between ⲹa and dⳡ/dasyu", citing as example the absence of racial considerations in the Roman empire. (p.159) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think the words that are blocked out with ? are a=Arya and d=Dasa.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Prof. Hock provides a detailed survey of the Vedic verses which have been cited as proof of a racial antagonism between the Vedic people and their enemies (verses containing terms like asikni and krshna, "black"), and concludes that the racial interpretation "must be considered dubious". (p.154)</b> He points out that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krshna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin color disqualifies a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.154-155)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article.../davidduke.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a very recent book, Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia (edited by Johannes Bronkhorst and Madhav M. Deshpande, Harvard 1999) <b>Hans Heinrich Hock and Thomas Trautmann have, so to speak, replicated the Hindu nationalist questioning of the racial interpretation of certain Vedic allusions to ethnic conflict. Both conclude, after surveying all the passages formerly quoted in support of the racial interpretation, that there is little reason to interpret terms like varna, ?color?, in terms of skin color, and that reference to blackness in enemies has the well-known metaphorical meaning of secrecy or evil.</b> Prof. Hock also points out that many leading Aryans are explicitly described as dark-skinned: Krishna, Draupadi, Arjuna (in spite of his name, ?pale?), Nakula and Damayanti (p.154), and he might have added Rama and some of the Vedic seers.
The struggle between Rama and Ravana was not one between a white Aryan and a black Dravidian, as Tamil separatists claim: Ravana was dark-skinned, alright, but also a descendent of the Vedic Pulastya clan and competent to perform Vedic ritual, while the Aryan Rama was equally dark-skinned. <b>Other scholars including Asko Parpola had earlier shown that the traditional enemies of the Vedic Aryans, viz. the Dasas, Dasyus and Panis, were principally the Iranian cousins of the Vedic Aryans</b> (all three ethnonyms exist in Iranian, not in the supposedly aboriginal Indian languages like Dravidian and Munda), who on average were at least as white as the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Varna further treated at http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch48.htm
Oh, this is sooo tough - who to believe: <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(a) strmfrnt's ignorant racists who with all their efforts in useless dabbling in Vedic literature have thus far only managed to prove that Oryans came in 'black' and/or 'noseless' variety (taking Vedic terms used to refer to the Iranian Dasas and Dasyus literally); OR
(b) indologists who've admitted to the long-held Indian/Dharmic position; and the only position verified by Hindu tradition and literature;
Gee, I don't know. It just *couldn't*, like, be (b) could it? Because that would, like, vindicate the Hindu position - and that's, like, <i>not on</i>. Maybe I should resort to throwing dice in order to make an 'educated' guess as to who could be right, (a) or (b)?
This one's on 191. Not been tracking IF for some days, hence picking this up late.
Those kreaturs on st*rmfr*nt are clearly way more hopeless than I gave them credit for.
(1) So they are silly enough to use the Rg Vedam 'to prove' that Dasas and Dasyus were black *of skin colour*? Oh, the hysteria!
Apparently they don't know that even their WitSSel has admitted to what Indians had long been pointing out and which other indologists had already acknowledged: Dasas and Dasyus were Iranians. That much is now established fact.
According to the hopefuls on strmfrnt though, Iranians (who, according to the myth of IE, are part of the Oryan clique) are black in colour. Oh, ok.
Then, going by their interpretation (that the Dasas, who were Iranians, were black), the fictional Oryans definitely came in 'black'. But <i>did the Oryans come in 'white' too</i>?
Hey, no fair. It don't say! The racist methods of Senseless And Unfounded Literalism and Twisting Others' Literature To Vindicate Oryan-Existence And Supremacy cannot confirm... Schade.
(2) Needless to say, the desperate strmfrnters haven't yet proved that references to 'black' amongst ancient people referred to skin. But what else can one expect given that racists always think in black-and-white? For them every mention of colour has to be read as referring to SKIN colour. They just can't go beyond it. So even were I to say they're "black-hearted villains" (a common phrase, that), they'll probably think I am calling them African instead, just because I used the word 'black' in there.
Like I said: them racists can't think beyond monochrome.
I have yet to come across any ancient writings that used the modern concept of 'black and white' - that is, using them as consistent and implacable markers for skin colour. According to people I've read, the invention and use of this dichotomatic colour-system as depicting some irrevocable population demarcation was entirely a late christo thing. Just 'cause racists can't think other than in terms of skin colour today does not mean ancient people used the words 'black' and 'white' with the same connotations, implications or even referred to the same idea(s) with those terms as the christoised world has been doing.
(3) What translation of the Vedas are they referencing anyways? No refs given. Need to have refs to confirm all that 'yellow bearded Gods' stuff. I mean, if it turned out to be one of those lame early translations of the Rg Veda - you know, the ones by those inept indologists who managed to do such things as turn the actual mention of <i>an-asa</i> "mouthless" Dasyus (meaning uncouth) into a racist <i>a-nasa</i> "noseless" Dasyus instead.... - if the refs were to translations by one of those kinds of indologists, then it's just another case of Ignore. Deprecated translations reading racist ideas in the Vedas are no longer used as valid sources.
Quick scan and I see the strmfrnters are in fact still referring to 'noseless Dasyus'. That means they are using a bad (discredited) translation source, and hence Ignore does apply.
(Though if we were to go by their oh-so-predictable refs to incompetent translations, that means at least one definitely Iranian - Oryan! - tribe was noseless: the Dasyus. And therefore, if we had to read it such that ancient lit records the existence of Noseless Oryans, I have to ask the obvious again: are there any definite refs to the nosey kind as well?
Tally: so far their pathetic racist literalism has produced 'black noseless' Oryans and little else. Way to go in proving 'white Oryans'! Think I now see where WitSSel digs up his sidekicks from. )
The bit about Indian actors and actresses is an even greater hoot. Indian stars are supposedly due to some Oryan remains in the Indian gene pool? Mwahahahahahaha. Oh that's good! Real good! <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> Must remember to submit that to an online joke-bank. Hope they don't ask for the source (won't look good saying it was from some forum where racist herds gather).
Proof for Oryan existence: some Indian actors are thought to be decent-looking enough so 'they must have some European ancestry', therefore the AIT must have happened, therefore there must have been Oryans! Woohoo. That would make a great thesis! I'm on a winner here! Just need to put in the impeccable references to strmfrnt - where all those racist geniuses have found the clinching evidence: pointing out how Indian actors are apparently 'a bit too pretty to be completely Indian' - and I'll get crowned with Superspecial Honours and be on every journal roll. Not going to happen? How sad. So much for *that* angle in attempting to prove The Grand Theory.
And what a 'compliment' - the typical racist argument: everything that's pretty anywhere else is due to some European residue. Can't prove some European ancestry? (Don't know anything about Preity, so not commenting) Then resort to <i>argumentum ad Oryanum</i> ('the Oryans did it'). That means the rest of India must be more 'Oryan' than the Cinestars then, 'cause there are way many people wandering around in India in real life who are way more lovely than anyone I've clapped my eye on on TV. Oh wait. Many of them are dark or very dark and therefore don't qualify for Oryan status, so scratch that.
Seems I overestimated the loose canons at that loser gathering - now wondering whether the *collective* IQ of the strmfrnt desperados even crawls up to a 100. Umm, nah - just shy of the magic centum.
That would (at least partly) explain why everyone everywhere avoids racists. Not only are they bunch of haters (a turn-off by itself), but next to that they're also incapable of seeking out facts, applying logic or using reason, seeing as how they're particularly challenged qua intelligence, social capabilities and sense.
They were good for a laugh this once, but not because of any intention on their end.
Shouldn't have to do this, as this is IF and everyone knows this already (and yeah, sorry about the bandwidth). But there may be lurkers who don't know better. For those who don't yet know, then -
Stuff on Dasas and Dasyus being Iranian, alleged 'racism' in the Vedas, use of black, meaning of Varna, actual an-asa vs wrong a-nasa:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Trautmann goes over the historical record of early Indology to show how the race theories of the 19th century forced racial interpretations on text fragments which had never been read in that sense before, e.g. how the <i>single</i> reference to the enemies as an-asa, "mouthless" (i.e. "of defective speech", meaning "not groomed in Vedic culture", Sayana's reading consistent with the traditional cultural interpretation) was read as a-nasa, "noseless",
i.e. "flat-nosed" by Max M? then cited by anthropometrist H.H. Risley as a racialdescription which the Vedic Aryans <i>often</i> made, and finally adopted in that version by most textbooks. (p.287-288)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hans Hock ("Through a glass darkly: modern 'racial' interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on ⲹa and dⳡ/dasyu in Vedic society") also points to the genesis of the racial interpretation in the context of the "scramble of the European powers to divide up the non-European world", in which "the British take-over of India seemed to provide a perfect parallel to the assumed take-over of prehistoric India by the invading 'Aryans'" (p.168). He argues that "such notions as 'race', defined in terms of skin color, are an invention of (early) modern European colonialism and imperialism and thus inappropriate for the prehistoric contact between ⲹa and dⳡ/dasyu", citing as example the absence of racial considerations in the Roman empire. (p.159) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think the words that are blocked out with ? are a=Arya and d=Dasa.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Prof. Hock provides a detailed survey of the Vedic verses which have been cited as proof of a racial antagonism between the Vedic people and their enemies (verses containing terms like asikni and krshna, "black"), and concludes that the racial interpretation "must be considered dubious". (p.154)</b> He points out that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krshna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin color disqualifies a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.154-155)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article.../davidduke.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a very recent book, Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia (edited by Johannes Bronkhorst and Madhav M. Deshpande, Harvard 1999) <b>Hans Heinrich Hock and Thomas Trautmann have, so to speak, replicated the Hindu nationalist questioning of the racial interpretation of certain Vedic allusions to ethnic conflict. Both conclude, after surveying all the passages formerly quoted in support of the racial interpretation, that there is little reason to interpret terms like varna, ?color?, in terms of skin color, and that reference to blackness in enemies has the well-known metaphorical meaning of secrecy or evil.</b> Prof. Hock also points out that many leading Aryans are explicitly described as dark-skinned: Krishna, Draupadi, Arjuna (in spite of his name, ?pale?), Nakula and Damayanti (p.154), and he might have added Rama and some of the Vedic seers.
The struggle between Rama and Ravana was not one between a white Aryan and a black Dravidian, as Tamil separatists claim: Ravana was dark-skinned, alright, but also a descendent of the Vedic Pulastya clan and competent to perform Vedic ritual, while the Aryan Rama was equally dark-skinned. <b>Other scholars including Asko Parpola had earlier shown that the traditional enemies of the Vedic Aryans, viz. the Dasas, Dasyus and Panis, were principally the Iranian cousins of the Vedic Aryans</b> (all three ethnonyms exist in Iranian, not in the supposedly aboriginal Indian languages like Dravidian and Munda), who on average were at least as white as the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Varna further treated at http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch48.htm
Oh, this is sooo tough - who to believe: <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(a) strmfrnt's ignorant racists who with all their efforts in useless dabbling in Vedic literature have thus far only managed to prove that Oryans came in 'black' and/or 'noseless' variety (taking Vedic terms used to refer to the Iranian Dasas and Dasyus literally); OR
(b) indologists who've admitted to the long-held Indian/Dharmic position; and the only position verified by Hindu tradition and literature;
Gee, I don't know. It just *couldn't*, like, be (b) could it? Because that would, like, vindicate the Hindu position - and that's, like, <i>not on</i>. Maybe I should resort to throwing dice in order to make an 'educated' guess as to who could be right, (a) or (b)?