Unmasking AIT

[dhu]

<b>
Church's History in India: Dividing Hindus as Aryans and Dravidians to Rule Them</b> ( RM - video )




Demonology

>

Separation

>>

Alienation

>>>

Victimhood

>>>>

Appropriation

>>>>>

Hostility

>>>>>>

[Husky]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Feb 21 2009, 10:00 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Feb 21 2009, 10:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Church's History in India: Dividing Hindus as Aryans and Dravidians to Rule Them</b>  ( RM - video )
[right][snapback]94795[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In a secondary title, they should make it <i>even</i> clearer by saying "Aryans (originally known by their biblical title of Japethites) and Dravidians (bible's Hamites)."

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Feb 21 2009, 10:07 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Feb 21 2009, 10:07 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Feb 21 2009, 10:00 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dhu @ Feb 21 2009, 10:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Church's History in India: Dividing Hindus as Aryans and Dravidians to Rule Them</b>  ( RM - video )
[right][snapback]94795[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In a secondary title, they should make it <i>even</i> clearer by saying "Aryans (originally known by their biblical title of Japethites) and Dravidians (bible's Hamites)."
[right][snapback]94796[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Japeth is destined to expand at the cost of Ham while Shem is the doting or bumbling mediator or sepoy. This is the model. Even in slumdog, the Muslim is the favored intermediary and is delibeartely provoked against the Hindu untermenschen, while the colonizer's presence is only obliquely alluded to.

[shamu]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Feb 21 2009, 10:00 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Feb 21 2009, 10:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>
Church's History in India: Dividing Hindus as Aryans and Dravidians to Rule Them</b>  ( RM - video )
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You can see the same strategy in caste segragation too.

[Guest]

http://indialogy. blogspot. com/2009/ 02/indo-european -aryanism. html
<b>Revisiting the hoopla of Indo-European Aryanism</b>
By Ratnadeep Banerji
Weekly Organiser

Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science; Stefan Arvidsson; The University of Chicago Press; Pp.354; Price not mentioned.

This book is a historiographic tour-de-force traipsing Indo-European grounds harping on a posteriority analysis of a contentious issue.

For the last two centuries religious historians, archaeologists and philologists have dealt upon the menagerie of Indo-Europeans. One faction of scholars has been upbeat about the uniqueness of the Indo-Europeans while the other faction has mingled them along with the mainstream human race.

The author, Stefan Arvidsson in his book ropes in Jacob Bryant and William Jones with their concepts of ‘Japhelites’ and ‘Hamites’ as precursors of myths and god figures of Greeks, Romans and Indians. Jones forged a linguistic similarity amidst the Indian and the European languages – ‘the cultural-heroic heathens came to be known as Indo-Europeans and Indo-Germans’. Stefan arraigns Frederick Max Müller of cleaving languages and religions into Semitic, Aryan and Turanian categories.

Max Müller and Father Schimdt hold that an ‘original monotheism had survived beneath the surface of the Indo-European mythologies’. Various scholars recreated a rift between the Aryans and Semitic lineage. Shem’s family line was attributed to monotheism, intolerance, irrational rituals coupled with a lack of feeling for art and culture.

The Indo-Europeans were hailed as spiritual, imaginative and philosophical. This dichotomy set anti-Semitic vigour during the second half of the nineteenth century.

The nineteenth century imperialism and its squalor skewed upon the scholars’ depiction of how the Indo-European colonizers in ancient times conquered a dark, primitive original population’.

The Indo-Europeans were portrayed as humanity’s cultural heroes who remained invincible throughout the annals of history ruling over lower people and spreading knowledge and thus should be ‘predestined to remain rulers even in the future’. This exalted solipsism created ‘the Aryan colony’ of India. This was an outcome of the scholars’ racist overture to cite evidences in the Vedic texts about the racial fetish Aryan immigrants and their ingrained apartheid system.

Max Müller was overzealous to ‘Indo-Europeanise’ the Indian society. He espoused to amalgamate Europeans and Indians to reform the Hindu culture and revamp its ‘medieval’ and ‘Turanian’ worship of idols with the old Aryan, Vedic religion.

Thus ‘Müller’s modernistic Protestantism also coloured his notions about Indo-European mythology’ that he held ‘irrational and immoral’. Most scholars have condoned the idea of ‘all people have a common origin….and as such, subject to the same material and cultural circumstances as all other peoples’.

And so the face-off between universalism and pluralism has been about sense-perception and predilection –‘whom one wants to include in “us” and where one chooses to draw the line between relevant and irrelevant ancestors’.

There have been deliberate insinuations to whittle apart the Indo-Europeans, Semites and Jews. The culturalistic and naturalistic attack perpetrated by Aryans upon the Jewish and Semitic religion is highly contentious. Though, one strand of Aryanism throughout the last two centuries ‘had liberal and universalistic overtones, and interpreted the Semitic tradition as the incarnation and antiquated pluralistic chauvinism’.

The flipside of cleaving humanity into ‘families’ and charting their characteristics backfires because then the families are construed upon as ’opposite and complementary parts of the whole human race’. The psychologist Andrew Samuels has exemplified the notoriety of this tradition in Carl Gustav Jung’s theories that tear asunder Jewish and Germanic. And the author is emphatic – ‘In any case, Indo-European scholarship has often been afflicted by the ethos of complementariness’.

If the Aryans are imaginative, then why should Semites lack imagination? Why should the Pelasgians be docile and submissive if the Aryans turn out a marshal race? Can farming by Aryans turn Turanians into nomads? The readers are to pit their jurisprudence against these oddities that intrigued history and misled minds.

Subtle ratiocination can envisage a figment of ‘Platonic idea of cosmos as a totality, of humanity and the world as being shaped by certain definite, almost geometrical ideals’.

Stefan invigorates the veracity of Indo-European genealogy of the Noachian triad. All the hoopla research conducted hitherto upon Indo-European religion and mythology has preconceived notion of a scion that bore the blueprint of ‘Indo-European’.

And thus the imprint it has bore throughout is flawed. History is not an absolute piece of fact. Scholars colour it with their own sense perception and thus vent it out as a relative projection that requires a review in different climes and locations by eggheads spread over a passage of time. Facts have been repudiated and concocted for stashed vendetta to flourish solipsism. History needs to be rewritten in its true colours.

This volume strives to steer clear of all obtrusions and parochialities that have so far occluded the clear stream of history. (The University of Chicago Press; )

RELATED ARTICLES:

Myth of Aryan Invasion @ http://www.gosai. com/chaitanya/ saranagati/ html/vedic- upanisads/ aryan-invasion. html

19 th Century Paradigms @ http://www.archaeol ogyonline. net/artifacts/ 19th-century- paradigms. html

David Frawley on Aryan Invasion @ http://www.hinduboo ks.org/david_ frawley/myth_ aryan_invasion/ index.htm

Motivated Indology @ http://indiaview. wordpress. com/2007/ 12/26/communal- clash-13- arrested/

Invading the Sacred @ http://worldmonitor .wordpress. com/2007/ 08/13/invading- the-sacred/

Europe’s Civilising Mission @ http://www.neurope. eu/articles/ 87642.php

[dhu]

CM Narendra Modi discusses AIT :

http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2009/01/...ion-proofs.html

see video

He is discussing colonialism and the topic of historicity is just incidental.

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->----- Weitergeleitete Mail ----
Von: Ram Gupta <r.e.gupta@...>
An: nofsanet <nofsa-nett@...>
CC: Eirik Welo <eirik.welo@...>
Gesendet: Dienstag, den 3. März 2009, 09:37:22 Uhr
Betreff: [NoFSA]ROIEL inviterer til gjesteforelesning

Guest lecture, Univ. of Oslo:

Cladistic and Acladistic Reconstruction
Implications for Indo-European
-------------------------------
Bridget Drinka (University of Texas, San Antonio)
Arr: PROIEL (www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/proiel/)

In this paper, three related arguments are presented: first, that the
family tree model as it stands is an inadequate depiction of the complex
relationships of the Indo-European languages, and that a new model is
needed; secondly, that the stratification of archaic vs. innovative
structures allows us not only to recognize the Indo-European languages as
related, but also to acknowledge that some Indo-European languages, like
Indo-Iranian and Greek, must have remained in contact longer than others;
and, finally, that this late contact constitutes one more piece of
evidence that the "Out of India" theory, whether referring to the
indigeneity of Indo-Aryan on the Indian subcontinent or the origination of
proto-Indo-European itself in that location, is untenable.

Tid: onsdag 11.3.2009, kl. 12.15-14.00
Sted: Harriet Holters hus, seminarrom 114
Universitetet i Oslo

Alle interesserte er hjertelig velkommen!

Eirik Welo
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst@...>

OIT refuted?

In a university with no OIT advocate in sight, they find it necessary to devote
time to refuting the OIT. Since a few years, we are in the second phase of
acceptance of a new theory: first it is ridiculed, and of that the OIT has truly
had its share; then it is fiercely opposed; and finally it is accepted with airs
as if every had never thought otherwise. So now the OIT is in the phase of being
fought. Thus, we've had the JIES mobilizing a handful of scholars to refute
Nicholas Kazanas, and HH Hock trying to refute our linguistic arguments, in turn
responded to by Talageri and myself.

Contentswise, the argument presented in the Oslo lecture apparently boils down
to this: the IE tree model, with each branch radially branching out from the
origin on its own road of development unaffected by the other branches (an
ideal-type which nobody ever took literally), needs to be amended, with
recognition of influence between branches at later stages. On some points, this
makes reconstruction technically complex, but on the most common level of
borrowing, viz. vocabulary, it is obvious and was never in doubt.

>In this paper, three related arguments are presented: first, that the
family tree model as it stands is an inadequate depiction of the complex
relationships of the Indo-European languages, and that a new model is
needed;<

PIE linguistic reconstruction as such is not put in doubt:

>secondly, that the stratification of archaic vs. innovative
structures allows us not only to recognize the Indo-European languages as
related,<

But:

>but also to acknowledge that some Indo-European languages, like
Indo-Iranian and Greek, must have remained in contact longer than others;<

Of course, and the basis of so much extant reconstruction effort, e.g. by
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1985.

>and, finally, that this late contact constitutes one more piece of
evidence that the ?Out of India? theory, whether referring to the
indigeneity of Indo-Aryan on the Indian subcontinent or the origination of
proto-Indo-European itself in that location, is untenable.<

Haha, how predictable. The speaker thinks that this somehow disproves the
possibility of a common IE homeland in India (while most linguistic data have no
geographical implications). Most linguists have this impression because even
when evaluating rivaling Homeland theories, they look at the data through
East-European-Homeland glasses. Thus, when Donald Ringe argues that Germanic
"path" is a loan from Iranian, they exclaim that this proves Iranian originates
in East Europe along with Germanic; when in fact it is perfectly compatible with
a common stay of Iranian and Germanic somewhere in Central Asia, on the Oxus
river or thereabouts. (That Germanic shows traces of an Asian itinerary, has
been argued convincingly by AIT believer Arnaud Fournet, pointing out Germanic's
links with Yeniseian, Altaic, Chinese and Uralic.) If Greek and Indo-Iranian
have late innovations in common, it is automatically ruled out that their common
development could have taken place in Afghanistan rather than Ukraine. But that
assuymption does not "constitute one more piece of evidence", it is just
circular reasoning. So far, no AIT upholder seems to have made the mental
exercise of fully imagining the OIT scenario which he claims to be refuting. The
OIT version that they argue against, is one hampered and handicapped by AIT
assumptions.

The man drawing attention to this lecture, CP Zoller, has himself contributed
mightily to the OIT with his discovery of Proto-Bangani, a kentum language in
India, very difficult to reconcile with current AIT assumptions. Most AIT
adherents have never faced the implications of Proto-Bangani, again from being
stuck too deeply in inertial thought habits. When reading Talageri's or Kazanas'
pro-OIT argumentations, I used to amuse myself with thinking up arguments that
AIT defenders might offer the day they condescend to responding to the OIT at
all. That day is now upon us, but the best counter-arguments imaginable still
don't come up because the AIT party does not succeed in getting out of its AIT
trenches and taking a truly unbiased fresh look at the data.

Kind regards,

KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

We still dont understand why did the Europeans as a collective come up on the AIT? they are still propping it up. All the posts quoted are from Indic victimhood point of view.

[dhu]

95 per cent people in India are immigrants: Justice Katju

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shillong, Mar 21: Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court
today said 95 per cent of the people in the country were immigrants and being cemented by the Constitution.

<b>''India is a country of migrants and 95 per cent of the people in the country are immigrants and are being cemented by the Constitution which ensures that the country of diversified cultures, traditions and religion bound together, '' </b>he said while speaking at the Diamond Jubilee celebration of the Shillong Bench of Gauhati High Court, here.

Justice Katju said, ''As the Constitution provides secularism, freedom and other democratic values, the people should not be forced to accept laws and customs which are outside the purview of the Constitution.'' He said, '<b>' The tribal customary laws in the north eastern states should not be abolished </b>which follows federalism as enshrined by the Constitution of India. '' Stating that <b>the Constitution had made India into a modern industrialised country, </b>he urged the people to uphold its spirit and honour <b>the founding fathers of the Constitution.</b>

Gauhati High Court Chief Justice Jasti Chelameswar informed that the process for separating the judiciary from the executive in Meghalaya had started.

He also underlined the need for qualified people to become judicial officers if separation of power takes place. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Pandyan]

Did the remaining 5% spontaneously emerge from the indigenous soil?

[dhu]

Even if 100% were from India, they would not be legitimated until the arrival of the Holy Constitution, the law giver Britishers, and their secular proxies, per Justice Katju.

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All these languages spread by expansion -- there are no migrations throughout this whole immense chronological and geographical sequence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

AIT is an impossibility in a non-normative (~polytheistic) context in which variation conforms only to natural geographic contours (ie no ideological motivations)

[dhu]

There is a cultural faultline between the Italic and Greek. Italic represents the northern OIT trajectory out of Afghanistan. Albanian-Greek-Armenian represents the southern trajectory. Normativism arose in this faultline between the old and new migrations.

[ramana]

Dhu, have you read "Third Ape" by Jared Diamond? It discusses most of what we are talking about.
I think speech (vak) developed in India and that led to writing in Middle East to ensure the same thoughts are spread among the people.

The out of Africa languages are guttral.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Mar 25 2009, 11:57 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Mar 25 2009, 11:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All these languages spread by expansion -- there are no migrations throughout this whole immense chronological and geographical sequence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

AIT is an impossibility in a non-normative (~polytheistic) context in which variation conforms only to natural geographic contours (ie no ideological motivations)
[right][snapback]95785[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry, can you explain it in layman's terms?

[HareKrishna]

<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Apr 25 2009, 10:11 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Apr 25 2009, 10:11 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Mar 25 2009, 11:57 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dhu @ Mar 25 2009, 11:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All these languages spread by expansion -- there are no migrations throughout this whole immense chronological and geographical sequence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

AIT is an impossibility in a non-normative (~polytheistic) context in which variation conforms only to natural geographic contours (ie no ideological motivations)
[right][snapback]95785[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry, can you explain it in layman's terms?
[right][snapback]96667[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
from what i get from dhu opinion a group of people may find the language of another group more intersting,more pleasent,more cool and adopt it,or some groups have more children then another groups and this lead to expansion of their language.(?)

[dhu]

Nichols explains the migrations out of India ( ie Bactria-margiana ) solely as a function of Geography. The migration *patterns* across Eurasia are overwhelmingly from East to West. Basically, you just need to get a dialect into the steppe expansion zone and this will naturally be carried across into the western cul de sac, leading to a compilation of a pseudo diversity (nongenerative) at the western end. IE, Iranian, turkic, Uralic, and Indic all expand from East to west. When you factor in the sole out-of-africa southern migration route with South Asia serving as a genetic diversification crucible, this only reinforces an overwhelming east to west historical gradient across Eurasia. Hunnic invasions into South Asia are a minor affair (and are nonetheless mostly from the East itself) and do not alter the south asian cultural landscape.

This is the default migration pattern with a non-normative ( heathen ) societal configuration. Any reversal within a non-normative configuration will be minor and will not result in any overwhelming cultural change on the scale of (putative) AIT. Likewise, the emigrant groups from south asia will not experience any ideological dissonance, nor will the receiving groups. of course conflict<i> per se</i> is not precluded (ie the conflict will be heathen type conflict, eg between kings and rulers (and not tribal).

To reverse this general pattern of migrations (which is dependent solely upon geography and the initial populating inoculations), you actually have to reverse the cultural configuration from non-normative to normative. Alexander's invasion was the beginning where there is just a small residue of normativism. Judaism is the first _application_ of Normative ethics as imperial propaganda in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid setting. Christianity is the Roman successor.

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A similar attempt had already been made by the Church in India since the days of the East India Company within caste groups in Hindu society. The non-Brahmin Hindus were told how the Brahmins were conquering Aryans from Central Asia, how the Saivism of dravidian Bharata had nothing to do with Vedic Brahminism (not Hinduism mind you), how the victims of untouchability were not Hindus at all and how tribal communities had no religion and their practices did not amount to worship of the divine. ‘Dravida and Dravidian’ had been successfully transformed from a geographic concept to a racial concept.

[right][snapback]96673[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Apr 26 2009, 04:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Apr 26 2009, 04:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nichols explains the migrations out of India ( ie Bactria-margiana ) solely as a function of Geography. The migration *patterns* across Eurasia are overwhelmingly from East to West. Basically, you just need to get a dialect into the steppe expansion zone and this will naturally be carried across into the western cul de sac, leading to a compilation of a pseudo diversity (nongenerative) at the western end. IE, Iranian, turkic, Uralic, and Indic all expand from East to west. When you factor in the sole out-of-africa southern migration route with South Asia serving as a genetic diversification crucible, this only reinforces an overwhelming east to west historical gradient across Eurasia. Hunnic invasions into South Asia are a minor affair (and are nonetheless mostly from the East itself) and do not alter the south asian cultural landscape.

This is the default migration pattern with a non-normative ( heathen ) societal configuration.  Any reversal within a non-normative configuration will be minor and will not result in any overwhelming cultural change on the scale of (putative) AIT.  Likewise, the emigrant groups from south asia will not experience any ideological dissonance, nor will the receiving groups.  of course conflict<i> per se</i> is not precluded (ie the conflict will be heathen type conflict, eg between kings and rulers (and not tribal).

To reverse this general pattern of migrations (which is dependent solely upon geography and the initial populating inoculations), you actually have to reverse the cultural configuration from non-normative to normative.  <b>Alexander's invasion was the beginning where there is just a small residue of normativism. Judaism is the first _application_ of Normative ethics as imperial propaganda in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid setting.  Christianity is the Roman successor.</b>
[right][snapback]96673[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So where does Islam fit in this scheme?

[dhu]

Muslims are biggest consumers of western propaganda concerning heathens but they are not able to manufacture it proportionately. I tend to think they are primed as converted sepoys for the empire. The color revolution in nepal which happened before our eyes is the main model which we should be applying. As you have said, Church may have resurrected Arianism to remove their Byzantine and Persian opponents and create fodder class in Asia. Just basing upon current parallels.