06-23-2007, 11:48 PM (This post was last modified: 06-23-2007, 11:55 PM by ramana.)
So now its the Greeks who were in India along with the Aryans! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
the paintings might be by MF Hussain when he is free from painting gods and godesses!
Seriously I counted quite a few people on horseback and quite a few weapons- bows (or those shields?, swords etc.
At least for those who want to study the 'cave' paintings these demonstrate a lot of technology advances metallurgy, bow craft, horse taming etc. And fighting in groups.
Greeks? I don't think so. This is obviously the opening scene from Khuda Gawah. BaChChan PaThAn is battling the Haplo O native DannIE DenzOngpA over a goat carcass. But see the BaChChan PaThAn holds the sword in his left hand. Is this a bad trait that he learned from the natives. Or is he mocking them? More research is needed.
The Aryan problem is probably the most controversial in human history. Numerous scholars have attempted to trace the homeland of Vedic Aryans but no solution is in sight in spite of the vast mass of literature. However, archaeological evidence of great significance has recently become available which throws a flood of light on the problem as it corroborates to a considerable extent the literary testimony and is even supported by that of the human skeletal biology. It has therefore become possible to locate the original homeland of the Ayans, the period of their migrations, the date of the composition of Rgveda, the flowering of the Vedic culture and finally their diaspora in different directions, not only in India but beyond its frontiers. The study thus represents a unique blend of the archaeological, literary and anthropological evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haven't found any reviews or comments by anyone who's read this book.
06-27-2007, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 06-27-2007, 05:56 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 18 2007, 08:49 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 18 2007, 08:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Human races were grouped by skin tone and other such simplistic schemes. And for a long time there were different racial categorisation schemes with some people putting Australian Aboriginals under the African heading, others saying that they were separate because of the occurrence of blonde hair; some dividing the Africans further into the Bushmen 'race' and a few other groups; and still others grouping Indians as Africans or otherwise as Australian Aboriginals. Makes one's head spin.[right][snapback]70257[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->An example with images from a book that has separated the Bushmen from the rest of Africa - because they aren't dark brown enough to be considered alongside other African communities. Hence the involuntarily separated Bushmen are called 'Capoids':
<i>World of Science</i>, published by Bay Books (Sydney and London), National Library of Australia card number and ISBN 1 86256 273 3
(No year given, but the book is at least as old as very late 1980s.)
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/RacesPage1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/RacesPage2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The above pages explain what race means and how it's determined. What sort of 'science' is this? As arbitrary as you please. And always different from others' categorisation of race (some admit only 3 races: N, C, M). All of this is only from the POV of western anthropologists. Which explains why 'Capoid' is not allowed to be grouped under 'Negroid', and why 'black' Africans in liberated Africa are now persecuting the 'brown' African Bushmen to extinction: because they think the Bushmen are somehow much closer related to the 'white' colonisers. Horrid legacy of lies. Enough.
At about the same period of time, the Indian Civil Service counted a fair number of amateur anthropologists in its ranks. Some of them have left behind valuable accounts of the tribes and castes in India. Others took an interest in race that at times amounted to an obsession. The obsessive ones found evidence of race wherever they looked. Their main confusion was between race and language, and they wrote freely about the `Aryan race' and the `Dravidian race'. Some treated Hindus and Muslims as belonging to different races, and others expressed similar views about the upper and the lower castes. These views, based on a confusion of categories, are now regarded as worthless from the scientific point of view.
It is not as if there was no serious scientific effort by the ICS anthropologists to study the racial composition of the Indian population. Several of them attended to the problem with patience and care, combining the study of physical features with that of social customs. The most notable was Sir Herbert Risley who produced a comprehensive classification of the races of India into seven types. But the principal `racial types' in his classification - Aryan, Dravidian, Aryo-Dravidian and Mongolo- Dravidian - were linguistic or regional categories in disguise and not racial categories at all. The subsequent classification by B.S. Guha, made in connection with the census of 1931, was less ambitious, for it did not speak of `racial types' but only of `racial elements' in the population of the country.
In the mid-1950s when I was a student of anthropology, most anthropologists had lost interest in the racial classification of the Indian population. Although there were many different racial elements in it, it was difficult, if not impossible, to sort them out into distinct racial groups. In the 1970s, I took some initiative on behalf of Oxford University Press to update Guha's work on racial elements. I approached a number of physical anthropologists, but they either declined or said that they would do it but failed to deliver. I am now convinced that identifying the races in the population of India will be an exercise in futility.
Despite all the hard work done by anthropologists from Boas onward, the idea of race dies hard in the popular imagination. That is understandable. What is neither understandable nor excusable is the attempt by the United Nations to revive and expand the idea of race, ostensibly to combat the many forms of social and political discrimination prevalent in the world. It is sad but true that many forms of invidious discrimination do prevail in the contemporary world. But to assimilate or even relate them all to `racial discrimination' will be an act of political and moral irresponsibility.
Husky would you say this neighbor joining tree using genetic distances has no meaning too?[right][snapback]70604[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->HH, the dgm you've linked to and my complaint were about two different things. Nevertheless here goes. Long response. My comment on the dgm itself is in the last half of this post, so maybe you'd want to skip straight down.
Never had a problem with genetics finding that some populations are more closely inter-related genetically than they are with other groups. It's simple sense. I naturally also accept the existence of ethnic groups. In this I am no different from the government of the country I live in. Not a single official form here will ask about anyone's "race", but there's a box for ethnicity (of which 'Indian' is one - Sri Lankans, Nepalese, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis have to tick the same box). Not a single school here teaches about 'race' in science classes. This is not the US. There's no one-drop rule here or questions about race.
<b>My point was merely that race was never a science</b> (regardless of how much the naturalists loved seizing up people's heads). One can see that even in how various general knowledge books could not constistently reproduce the same races: some have 5 (example in my previous post), some had only 4 and others 3 (M, N, C) where 'Australoid' went missing. No hard and fast rule: non-determinism, because at any point there can be 3 to 5 races depending on who you ask or which book you consult. Is that a science?
Going by how the naturalists/early anthropologists classified humans into races - this was before genetics of course - they did so on the flimsiest of criteria. Skin colour, skull dimensions, head shape, length of forehead, hair type, length of limbs. (Especially memorable is the 'round face = backward, un-European; Oval face = civilised, European'. According to that rule, the poor beautiful Charlize Theron is not European <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
And because this dealt with the classification of humans in a time when colonising other countries was an okay passtime, you can see human biases and subjectivity creep in. And where's the 'yellow' person? I know a significant number of E Asians and though I've seen porcelain-coloured, tanned and brown (like lighter N Indian) people among them, I've yet to see someone yellow.
The Bushman of Africa is African and even according to the lame criteria that naturalists used, they should at least have had the decency to let the Bushmen into the 'Negroid' racial category. But no. Bushmen are apparently a different brown than the African brown (a bit of a Tutsi dilemma there), and thus it didn't make sense to some European anthropologists that Bushmen - in spite of never having lived outside of Africa - should be grouped with their own country/continent members. The naturalist therefore felt compelled to create a new race for them altogether: Bushmen were 'Capoids', a race unto themselves, because the anthropologist could not see beyond his own preconceived notions and prejudices. The S African government in recent times has been discriminating against Bushmen, relocating them and silently causing their extinction because the Bushmen's 'brown' is not recognised as related to the rest of Africa's brown ('black'). Can you imagine? What in the world did the Bushmen do to deserve this? It's no fault of theirs. They may be their own subethnic group or even ethnic group, but are nevertheless linked to the others of their continent. The blame for their plight in post-apartheid Africa lies solely on the ideas of race instilled by colonisers, teaching that the Capoid (lighter brown Africans) was a race distinct from the rest of the African population.
I am not arguing here against the reality of genetic clustering and distances between them. As long as all relevant genes are considered, that's a science: it does not involve arbitrarily and inconsistently assigning people to groups based on subjective and variable things like the head shape or skin-colour, for instance. Genetics is a science and no one would have any problems with that (as long as its research is not driven or interpreted by racists, of course - this is an important distinction).
<b>As regards the diagram which you asked me to comment on</b>, I happily note that the Bushmen are not clustered as an island unto themselves. And finally N and S America's native Americans get their own group which is only common sense seen as how they've been genetically isolated - or nearly so - from the rest of us for such long periods.
Otherwise, I need to read through the research paper that goes with the diagram, I must know that it has been peer-reviewed before I accept it. This is for a number of reasons:
(1) The diagram mentions 'Eskimo'. Now what kind of scientist of our time would even contemplate writing that word? It's a racist term as most know. The correct term is Inuit (sp?). Definitely can't be an American or Canadian who made this diagram. Wackymedia standards is the only explanation.
(2) Ditto for 'Lapp'. Again, considered a racist term that scientists would not use (polite explanation link). The real term is Saami or Sami. Definitely can't be a European who made the diagram. And can't be a scientist of our time, not a published one at any rate.
I always accepted that qua phenotype Sa(a)mis in the 20th and 21st centuries are most easily placed with other Europeans. But the Swedes of the first half of the 20th century didn't agree, you see. For a long time they put lots of effort into proving that Sa(a)mis belonged to some supposedly 'inferior race'. Sometimes they were placed in the 'Mongoloid' category.
http://boreale.konto.itv.se/history.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1913-1920: The Swedish race-segregation politic creates a system of institutional racism. The use of the Sami language is forbidden in the "Nomadicschools" A racebiological institute is created in Uppsala.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->See for instance also http://boreale.konto.itv.se/lies.htm, section <b>"Swedish racism" which has images</b> and the animated gif at http://boreale.konto.itv.se/webmstr.htm
In fact, Saami people being related to Finns, Siberians (there are Siberian Sa(a)mis) and Estonians are somewhat related to people near Mongolia, from which regions it's said they migrated north long ago. Even <i>if</i> in very early times they had ever looked a bit E Asian, most now look quite northern to me (bright blue eyes are common, and fair hair here and there) because of acclimatisation.
(3) The diagram makes mention of 'Caucasian' which was originally a racial group name; but 'Negroid', 'Mongoloid', 'Australoid' are replaced by 'African', 'E Asian', 'Oceanian' - suppose we can say that at least these last have lost the silly names given them. But why is one term used - Caucasian - an old racial term whilst the others are not? The others imply at least some geographical location, whereas Caucasia ... do they still have the Caucasus in mind?
(Just wondering about something else too: Middle-Eastern populations are missing. Am quite curious to know where they fit in.)
Also, I've yet to come across a scientist from this decade or late 1990s who mentions races in their science papers. But then of course, I've not read all the reliable genetics papers out there. Still, need to look at the corresponding journal paper itself and see for myself a paper talking about 'Caucasians' and the like before I can accept it is as emanating from some scientific quarter.
(4) It's a wackymedia item and as a general rule, I require supporting evidence for anything that's at the Wikia Foundation. Again, this just means I need the original journal article.
But in any case, the diagram does not show races but genetic clusters with tags attached. So it doesn't have any bearing on my gripe with racial categorisation other than the odd use of 'Caucasian' (which word, say what any one will, does in this instance derive from the race name 'Caucasoid' rather than imply the actual Caucasus).
Husky. I do not disagree with your general assessment of wikipedia's crappy tendencies. But in this particular case that is not entirely relevant to the issue at hand. The problem is getting emotional and dogmatic over issues that have the potential to be unsettling. Human biological differences is one such topic. It is indirectly related to the Aryan invasion and such issues. Since this can "hit close to home" it is unsettling. Say we were discussing the varieties of cats, dogs or cattle, we will not be so emotional because it does not hit so close to home. In human conflict variety of memes can be infectious and destructive at the same time. Islam and Isaism are two well-known examples. The idea one's own race (=ethnic group) being superior is another similar one (it is both infectious and destructive). These ideas were prevalent amongst white European populations as well as various dark-skinned and light-skinned populations of the world. However, none of this means that a study of human differences is something invalid. One cannot reactively emotionally to a technical issue such as this. By wishing away differences they will not go away, and this only leads to more ignorance.
In a rooted tree of the extant<i> Homo sapiens</i> the bushmen come out as being the basal-most branch. So when one cuts the rooted tree up they may end up getting a race of their own. Is this meaningful? It depends on what scientific problem you want to answer. If some one uses it for politics one cannot blame the classification scheme. Even without it, in the past Niger-Congo speakers eliminated Khoi and San like populations. Even without west-imposed racial theories inter-ethnic human conflict and genocide happened and might happen in the future. Even the egalitarianist R. Dawkins had to grudgingly admit that humans might have been adapted in the past to elicit ethnic discrimination responses.
Of course you are free to take the arduous path of studying human biology yourself and reach appropriate conclusions.
06-29-2007, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 06-29-2007, 09:42 AM by Husky.)
Except for one thing (below) you and I are not disagreeing on the main points. I have no problem with people studying genetics and how close various human populations are to each other. Genetics is one of the most interesting fields in biology and why not look at how humans of one place are related to those in the next?
I also agree that the study thereof is separate from human stupidity about racism, ethnocentrism and other things.
Again, I also agree that the only reason the study of the relatedness of human population groups can cause any foreseeable problem would be precisely because it deals with our own kind: humans. For better or for worse, even the 21st century is populated with some dimwits who like to imagine one group is somehow - even if only for the most superficial of reasons - 'better' than another.
The existence of bad apples does not mean sensible people shouldn't study how humans evolved, how they dispersed and colonised various inhabitable parts of the world. I'm almost just as interested in this as I am at finding out how the depths of the oceans (where the pressure due to the masses of water is beyond imagination) is able sustain life: there are most strange and wonderful creatures adapted to living there; or how there are some ecological systems of life on earth that do not require the sun to live.
I don't know that everyone working in the field of genetics today is free from the prejudices that the naturalists of the 19th and early 20th century eagerly entertained.
Was never one for considering repercussions myself, I'm curious like a cat - operating on the shortsighted principle 'the future will tell where we go wrong'. When I think about it though, like I am forced to do now, somewhere there is a niggling in my head telling me that not trying to find answers to all the questions is a bad thing, whilst on the other side there's the thought that some questions are for the present (while humans are still timebomb teenagers ready to explode at the earliest opportunity) best left unvisited.
But hey, I was barely awake during the sole ethics course I ended up taking, so what do I know? Besides, I don't think they ever covered such things...
The sum total of my complaint was with respect to races. Not a scientific classification scheme. It makes no sense for 21st century science to be using this (and they don't, as far as I am aware), unless perhaps scientists are planning to wholly transplant race <i>names</i> onto genetic clusters (but, other than for Caucasian, even that diagram didn't use race names). Even in the latter case, they are then <i>not</i> really referring to the same categories (that is, they're not defined by the same criteria) as the ones naturalists/proto-anthropologists were referring to.
There is one thing in your last post that I disagree with, merely because it is factually incorrect:
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jun 29 2007, 07:30 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jun 29 2007, 07:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->race (=ethnic group)[right][snapback]70623[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->By definition, race is not the same as ethnic group.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->R. Dawkins had to grudgingly admit that humans might have been adapted in the past to elicit ethnic discrimination responses.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm curious to know which of Richard's books this is.
ADDED:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a rooted tree of the extant Homo sapiens the bushmen come out as being the basal-most branch. So when one cuts the rooted tree up they may end up getting a <group> of their own. Is this meaningful?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No probs with this, as long as where applicable all genetic clusters that are as distant from neighbouring clusters (as the Bushmen are from their neighbours) get their own group as well.
06-29-2007, 07:54 PM (This post was last modified: 06-29-2007, 08:16 PM by dhu.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a rooted tree of the extant Homo sapiens the bushmen come out as being the basal-most branch. So when one cuts the rooted tree up they may end up getting a race of their own.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a nice cartoon. I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that Australoid has a so-called Caucasoid antecedent. In fact, it is other way around according to genetic line analysis.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No probs with this, as long as where applicable all genetic clusters that are as distant from neighbouring clusters (as the Bushmen are from their neighbours) get their own group as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
These bucket characterizations are nifty way to "dispense with genetic dating". Otherwise our heerenvolk friends would be simply known as Caucasitos (eg Negritos).
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jun 29 2007, 10:47 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jun 29 2007, 10:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
These bucket characterizations are nifty way to "dispense with genetic dating".[right][snapback]70647[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jun 29 2007, 07:54 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jun 29 2007, 07:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that Australoid has a so-called Caucasoid antecedent. In fact, it is other way around according to genetic line analysis.[right][snapback]70637[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry, yes you're right of course. I know you've been repeatedly trying to impress this on us, and that I keep forgetting to keep time depths in mind. Thanks for setting me right.
I am writing this post as I have not received any acknowledgment from the moderators about the forum name. I am deeply dissatisfied with the name of this forum and I know this is a concern with many members of Stormfront. There has been a thread 63 replies deep a while ago with many alternative names of this forum and I really hope this change can be implemented in a timely manner.
The very name "Pre-Christian Indo-European Religions" assumes that the many ethnic religions of our people are of no importance to Stormfront management. As an amateur scholar of European history and folklore I completely disagree with this naming convention as being distinctly partisan against non Christians. As a non Christian, I can only come to the conclusion that being placed in the category of "pre Christian" beliefs is either 1) an underhanded condemnation against beliefs other than Christianity, 2) is thought to contain zero importance to achieving the future of our people.
Either way for a forum such as Stormfront where any and every pro white folkish movement has a place to discuss it's subjects of interest I find it odd that non Christians get shafted with a misnamed misnomer like "Pre-Christian Indo-European Religions" under the title of which to post.
I would suggest it be renamed Indigenous European Religons to better expresses the subjects and aspirations of SF members who choose to contribute towards this forum. It doesn't have to be that name by any means but I really don't think the current name accurately reflects the kind of conversations that take place here or the religious aspirations of contributors.
I'm NOT asking to create a Buddhist forum, a Sufi forum, or Creativity, or Radical Traditionalist, Cosmotheist, Asatru, Pagan, Wiccan, Odinist, Thelemite, Luciferian, Hermetic, Wortcunning, or any of the dozens of others beliefs whites have adopted, I simply ask that a more accurate name be used to describe the often eclectic beliefs of SF members that contribute here. Thanks for your time and consideration, I hope we can come to an agreement that is a win for all our people.
I guess that depends on which pre-Christian religion you are comparing it to. I don't know a lot about pegan religions except perhaps a little about Celtic Wiccan. My religion is weird. I worship the creator. I believe that The Creator is neither male or female. I believe that that The Creator is love. Therefore, I worship love. Everything else for me falls to nature. What is unnatural is also impious. I guess it is about that simple. I disagree with Christianity because it is from a foreign country that is non-white, and therefore, was not our original religion, not because of egalitarism (although I haven't really pondered it either to see if it is also a problem). What I worry about is this: WN's are separatists and many of them are Christian, using that for the promotion of our cause. What if someone pulls out the argument: "Well, you believe and worship Jesus who was a non-white, and that is hypocritical." I mean, how will they argue that? I personally, cannot think of a way for them to defend that position. They can't say that Jesus was white, can they? He was born in a dark skinned country. At any rate, I think I got off of topic, but I would like to know the answer to that without offending anyone. I have nothing against Christians; my best friend is one.
I've been reading an autobiographical account on the life of Savitri Devi. Devi, an ardent National Socialist, traveled to India because she believed the original Aryan beliefs remained, which were lost when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity.
She viewed Christianity as a sort of Jewish invention and disliked its egalitarianisms, believing it was against the natural order. She admired the caste system in India, where the higher caste remained lighter skin.
We know that Sanskrit (a language in India) and all European languages share a common ancestor, and Devi believed India was the last territory where the original Aryan beliefs remained.
So, what are your thoughts on this topic? Is Hinduism similar to pre-Christian European religion? The oldest texts in Hinduism, the Vedas, makes reference to the Aryans.
07-13-2007, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 07-13-2007, 08:32 AM by Husky.)
Acharya, everyone will know that that racist forum for skinheads believes in The Oryan Fable. All racists and other neo-nazis do. (By the way, 'stormfr*nt' - is that like a reference to the nazi stormtrooper/wehrmacht or SA, schutzabteilung? Creeps.)
<b>Why post from there?</b> Who cares what those raving madmen think?
All neo-nazis worship The Oryan Fable as if the fantastic theory were the Gospel (even after such delinquents quit christianity when realising it plagiarised from Judaism). But why refer to their blind faith here?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Says skinhead They can't say that Jesus was white, can they? He was born in a dark skinned country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is the kind of 'scientific' garbage that passes around their mind-numbing site? What nonsense. Sounds like an uneducated brainwashed person from N America or wherever, who imagines people from Semitic countries look pakistani. (Oh, I forgot, even hollywood thinks Spanish Paz Vega is 'brown' - mwahahaha.)
Don't they know Jewish people and Arabians are light-skinned people? Arabian women are very very fair skinned. In many cases whiter (as in actual 'white') than Europeans who can be quite pinkish in the north to olive/mediterranean from France downwards. It's only E Europeans amongst Europeans who can compare as a whole population with Middle-Easterners in terms of 'whiteness'. Ever seen Tunisian women (women all over the world being fairer in complexion to men, hence my suggestion)? White as white stone. Some Middle-Easterners <i>can</i> look pretty tanned in their own homelands, but after they've migrated for some time to the cold climate I noticed how even their skin turns a matching colour too. Thus even they ended up proving my general observation.
What is this about jesus being 'born in a dark-skinned country'. Last anyone checked, his birth and ancestry were set in the ME. I don't think they've moved the story to a Berber country or Africa or the Indian subcontinent just yet.
07-20-2007, 02:56 AM (This post was last modified: 07-20-2007, 03:01 AM by acharya.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jul 12 2007, 03:00 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 12 2007, 03:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Acharya, everyone will know that that racist forum for skinheads believes in The Oryan Fable. All racists and other neo-nazis do. (By the way, 'stormfr*nt' - is that like a reference to the nazi stormtrooper/wehrmacht or SA, schutzabteilung? Creeps.)
<b>Why post from there?</b> Who cares what those raving madmen think?
All neo-nazis worship The Oryan Fable as if the fantastic theory were the Gospel (even after such delinquents quit christianity when realising it plagiarised from Judaism). But why refer to their blind faith here?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are several reasons for posting this site.
Do a search for 'India' in the forum
You will see the different of Kind of discussion with Indians too.
In one place a white guy says that Indians Aryans have married into monkey people.
Indians have monkey people.
In another place a white guy says that one Indian Brahmins told him
that India in a lost cause and the PURITY of the aryan race is gone.
Now it upto to the white guys to maintain the purity of the aryan race.
These kind of discussion need to be understood by the Indian middle class so that
they understand the race relations and how the concept of 'aryan' race has seeped into the mind of the Euro white race in the last 200 years .
This fake aryan pure race concept started by using the word originally from India has caused havoc in the rest of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These kind of discussion need to be understood by the Indian middle class so that
they understand the race relations and how the concept of 'aryan' race has seeped into the mind of the Euro white race in the last 200 years .
This fake aryan pure race concept started by using the word originally from India has caused havoc in the rest of the world.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thanks for the explanation. Understood.
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jul 20 2007, 02:56 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jul 20 2007, 02:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In another place a white guy <b>says</b> that one Indian Brahmins told him
[right][snapback]71342[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->'White guy' reminds me of that high-up catholic priest who <b>said</b> that 'a Jewish friend' told him that Jews were indeed after christians and that the as-yet-not-produced Jewish friend admitted they killed the non-existent christ: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2000/03/16...00316.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"It is a fact that the Jews have killed Christ. This is an undeniable historical fact," Gumpel told CBC.
"I have discussed this with a Jewish colleague, a university professor and he said, 'Well, my dear professor,' he said, 'what do you want? Our forefathers found out that Christ was a false prophet, so we killed Him. And then of course, why should we have changed our attitude with regard to those who followed this false prophet'," Gumpel said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These fraudsters ought to produce the 'Jewish colleague' and the 'Indian Brahmin'. No one believes proof delivered through the mouth of imaginary friends (that is, no one has need of speeches that catholic nazis or oryan-fantasists deliver by ventriloquism (sp?)).
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jul 25 2007, 05:15 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jul 25 2007, 05:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->[img]
Still looking for mahaeuropa and ancient greek river valleys.
[right][snapback]71509[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Search on Danube valley cultures-Cucuteni,Vinca-Turdas,Gumelnita etc.It has towns whit 10000 inhabitants in 4000 bc.But after 3000 bc they remain in the back thanks to repeated invasions of the kurganites(IE people?) who destroy all this cuultures.If the kurganites didnt came,probably the Danube valley was also on this map.
Stil the Danube region was well ahead comparative whit regions from today France,England and co.
We can see that in today Eurasia are 4 big cultures -indic(Indus-Gange),middle east(Egipt-Sumer),sinic(Yellow river),european(no river here).
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->