Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 21st, 2013, 09:26 PM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberc View Post
India got prototypes of it's languages and religion from these central Asian people, but everything else is so different from civilizations of C. Asia.

Click the image to open in full size.
That dude with the mustache has breast just like the women in that image... a very unlikely central Asia kind of dude...


Why is it that every discussion about India ends up in comedy?
Fireatwill is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 21st, 2013, 09:31 PM   #12

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

Yes, indeed. Compare those images from around 2nd century BC with the Central Asian cultures above.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireatwill View Post
Why is it that every discussion about India ends up in comedy?


This caucasoid thing was comedy to begin with.

Last edited by Aberc; March 21st, 2013 at 09:52 PM.
Aberc is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 12:07 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 639

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
In fact, they do not even form the dominant Caucasian group in India. There are other Caucasian ethnicities in India who have migrated to India after the Nirvana of Buddha, such as:

1. Indo-Scythians - Jats mostly, also called Sakas. Their warlords Mihirkula was probably a Christian.
2. Hepthalites/ White Hunas - Most of them became Rajpoots after Brahmins raised them to the status of Brahma-Kshastra kings to drive away remaining traces and influences of Buddhism among common people in western India (especially Rajasthan).
3. Gurjara-Pratiharas : They are also Caucasians and their descendants are mostly called Gurjars as a caste in India in current times. The oldest record of these tribes in India date to around 11th century. They were also most definitely from Central Asia.
4. Indo-Greeks, descendants of Alexander's armies who multiplied and formed a significant Caucasian family in current times, but got absorbed into various tribes of India.
5. Indo-Iranian (Parsis) - The only Zoroastrian people extant in the world who migrated to India after the rise of Islam in Iran.


Considering the above, the Indo-Aryans were just one of the Caucasian groups in Northern India, unlike the established theory that the Aryans form the majority of India's current population and that they were the first civilized people in India.


In fact, Indo-Aryan Brahmins are not the only Aryans who live in India. The Aryan races in India are:

1. Indo-Aryan (Brahmins mostly).
2. Indo-Iranian (Zoroastrians)
3. Persian Muslim invaders and descendants(Muslims in India)

First there is zero archeological or genetic proof of any migration of peoples into North India to validate the European theory of a 'Indo-european' people entering into India. The whole thing rests on Linguistics alone.

Second all Indians are related to each other, the studies which are often cited on the internet about the higher castes being more closely related to the europeans are talking about the genetic relationship between Ancestral North Indians and europeans from 45 000 years ago, nothing to do with the european theory of 'Indo-europeans'.

The Aryan Religions and cultures are purely Indian. Any adoption of the Swastika or the Name Aryan is borrowed by other peoples, it has never been used as a self description anywhere outside of Ancient India and Persia.

Study Indian Genetics. Look at the European Myth of a undefeated Alexander trying to invade India. European scholars are happy with the logic of a greek army rebbelling against fighting Indian soldiers because they didn't want to die, but happily marching to death in a desert by the orders of Alexander.

Try to use your head, national and ethnic narratives are for their intended societies, India is not Europe.
beeh is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 03:30 AM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: australia
Posts: 2,449

It's claimed by an Orissa man that Sanskrit came from east India and spread to the Aryan groups. He was coffee coloured with 10ml of milk but Alexander probably met the 20 ml milk Punjabis.
chimera is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 06:59 AM   #15
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 898

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimera View Post
It's claimed by an Orissa man that Sanskrit came from east India and spread to the Aryan groups. He was coffee coloured with 10ml of milk but Alexander probably met the 20 ml milk Punjabis.
Except that it didn't, comparative philological evidence alone suggests otherwise, let alone later Indo-Aryan dialectics...so...yeah.

Ah well what great men like Alexander and Menandros etc could not do, the Indians did to themselves, e.g ripping off the Punjab etc. I do wonder, seeing some of the jokey comments made by a lot of our south Asian posters, what men like Chandragupta would think of their descendants...

Literally every Indian thread here turns into a jokefest. Shame.
World Focker is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 01:18 PM   #16

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeh View Post
First there is zero archeological or genetic proof of any migration of peoples into North India to validate the European theory of a 'Indo-european' people entering into India. The whole thing rests on Linguistics alone.

Second all Indians are related to each other, the studies which are often cited on the internet about the higher castes being more closely related to the europeans are talking about the genetic relationship between Ancestral North Indians and europeans from 45 000 years ago, nothing to do with the european theory of 'Indo-europeans'.

The Aryan Religions and cultures are purely Indian. Any adoption of the Swastika or the Name Aryan is borrowed by other peoples, it has never been used as a self description anywhere outside of Ancient India and Persia.

Study Indian Genetics. Look at the European Myth of a undefeated Alexander trying to invade India. European scholars are happy with the logic of a greek army rebbelling against fighting Indian soldiers because they didn't want to die, but happily marching to death in a desert by the orders of Alexander.

Try to use your head, national and ethnic narratives are for their intended societies, India is not Europe.

Iran is about 1 hour away from Delhi by flight (look up at the world map) where as it takes more than twice that much time to reach Bangalore (Southern India) or Calcutta (East India). Considering the topology of the region, one would actually need proof for the argument that no migrations happened between Iran and Northern India in the last 3000 years, than to prove that migrations happened. India did not have a Great Wall like China, and even Great Wall did not save the Chinese from being invaded by the Mongols and Manchus in the medieval times.

The only reason Indians are related to each other genetically is because majority of the Indian population is based on the substratum of the Austroasiatic race - which you may not accept (because you perceive them as a primitive people compared to the Hindu Aryans). They were known as Cheras down in Kerala and were even known as far up North as the Himalayas. Tulu language of Mangalore shows heavy influence from Austroasiatic languages (many Munda words in it). Also, not all Austroasiatic people were forest tribes. Just like how the Incas and Mayas were more civilized in South America than many primitive tribes inhabiting dense secluded forests, despite being of the same "race", in the same way there were Austroasiatic people who were secluded from their urban counterparts who eventually adopted the Aryan culture and lost their original identity. That is why majority of the Indians are not Caucasoids but still identify themselves with various Hindu castes.

In any case, my point was not about Indo-Aryans. I was highlighting the fact that there were many other "Caucasoid" ethnicities that migrated to India other than the Indo-Aryans.

Take the example of the Jats who form about 30-40% population of States like Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan. They are primarily Caucasians with some admixture with the native Indian populations and they are the same people who were known as "Sakas" (Indo-Scythians). Or for example, the Hunas, who once advanced as far into INdia as Malwa in Central India. They were also Caucasoids (non-Aryan) and are even mentioned in many Hindu puranas. In fact, most of the Kashmiris are descendants of these Hunas and are the only Indian ethnic group who are more than 90% Caucasians. Rajtarangini by Kalhana also makes the mention of Hunas in Kashmiri. There is also a purana which mentions a Central Indian king's visit to "Hunapradesh" (Huna country) in the Himalayas, which is the same as present day Kashmir. So my point is, millions of Indians who have the highest Caucasian influences, are not the descendants of Indo-Aryans.


And, of course, the purest Aryans and one of the most Caucasoid groups in India today are the Parsis (Zoroastrians) who are a very affluent community compared to other INdians in a specially racist society. Even British and Muslim rulers are known to have treated them favorably because of their "whiteness".
Rakshasa is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 03:02 PM   #17

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Quote:
The only reason Indians are related to each other genetically is because majority of the Indian population is based on the substratum of the Austroasiatic race - which you may not accept (because you perceive them as a primitive people compared to the Hindu Aryans).
Indians are related because they are made up of two types of people. ANI and ASI in different frequencies. I doubt ASI spoke an Austroasiatic language.


Quote:
which you may not accept (because you perceive them as a primitive people compared to the Hindu Aryans).
Were they all that primitive?

Cause I dont see Central Asian influence in the way ancient Indians dress.

Click the image to open in full size.

Or dance

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

Nor do I see Central Asian influence in their architecture.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.


Keep in mind all of the styles/cultures above was being developed in the post Indus period.

Last edited by Aberc; March 22nd, 2013 at 03:28 PM.
Aberc is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 03:27 PM   #18

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Cause if these nomads looked like this with their boots, trousers, long hair, unshaved beards, etc came to India and "civilized" India.....

Click the image to open in full size.

.....


And Indian civilization ends up looking nothing like Iranic Central Asian stylistically.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.


There was probably a lot of mixing of styles with the Indigenous component.

Cause when India was taken over by the Islamics and British.... This is what happened..

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.


That period of Indian history is extremely murky, but I dont think they completely civilized those people. I think there was blend.

Last edited by Aberc; March 22nd, 2013 at 03:40 PM.
Aberc is offline  
Old March 22nd, 2013, 06:00 PM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 639

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Iran is about 1 hour away from Delhi by flight (look up at the world map) where as it takes more than twice that much time to reach Bangalore (Southern India) or Calcutta (East India). Considering the topology of the region, one would actually need proof for the argument that no migrations happened between Iran and Northern India in the last 3000 years, than to prove that migrations happened. India did not have a Great Wall like China, and even Great Wall did not save the Chinese from being invaded by the Mongols and Manchus in the medieval times.

The only reason Indians are related to each other genetically is because majority of the Indian population is based on the substratum of the Austroasiatic race - which you may not accept (because you perceive them as a primitive people compared to the Hindu Aryans). They were known as Cheras down in Kerala and were even known as far up North as the Himalayas. Tulu language of Mangalore shows heavy influence from Austroasiatic languages (many Munda words in it). Also, not all Austroasiatic people were forest tribes. Just like how the Incas and Mayas were more civilized in South America than many primitive tribes inhabiting dense secluded forests, despite being of the same "race", in the same way there were Austroasiatic people who were secluded from their urban counterparts who eventually adopted the Aryan culture and lost their original identity. That is why majority of the Indians are not Caucasoids but still identify themselves with various Hindu castes.

In any case, my point was not about Indo-Aryans. I was highlighting the fact that there were many other "Caucasoid" ethnicities that migrated to India other than the Indo-Aryans.

Take the example of the Jats who form about 30-40% population of States like Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan. They are primarily Caucasians with some admixture with the native Indian populations and they are the same people who were known as "Sakas" (Indo-Scythians). Or for example, the Hunas, who once advanced as far into INdia as Malwa in Central India. They were also Caucasoids (non-Aryan) and are even mentioned in many Hindu puranas. In fact, most of the Kashmiris are descendants of these Hunas and are the only Indian ethnic group who are more than 90% Caucasians. Rajtarangini by Kalhana also makes the mention of Hunas in Kashmiri. There is also a purana which mentions a Central Indian king's visit to "Hunapradesh" (Huna country) in the Himalayas, which is the same as present day Kashmir. So my point is, millions of Indians who have the highest Caucasian influences, are not the descendants of Indo-Aryans.


And, of course, the purest Aryans and one of the most Caucasoid groups in India today are the Parsis (Zoroastrians) who are a very affluent community compared to other INdians in a specially racist society. Even British and Muslim rulers are known to have treated them favorably because of their "whiteness".

Brother stop this Racial nonsense.

By the subtext of your words, it is clear you feel some Indians are using unproven European theories of history and peoples to glorify themselves over other Indians in India.

There are people in europe, africa, middle east, east and south east Asia and the American continent doing the same thing right now, using even more ridiculous theories. The History channel is promoting superior Aliens and stupid Humans. The french apparently care about Africans

All People want to be special or at least be on the perceived moral side.

Dividing Indians was a political strategy of the British, yet you would use their arguments to correct what you perceive as an injustice today?

What exactly is the point of fighting a perceived injustice if the foundation of the owed justice is based on an injustice?
beeh is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 12:54 AM   #20

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeh View Post
Brother stop this Racial nonsense.

By the subtext of your words, it is clear you feel some Indians are using unproven European theories of history and peoples to glorify themselves over other Indians in India.

There are people in europe, africa, middle east, east and south east Asia and the American continent doing the same thing right now, using even more ridiculous theories. The History channel is promoting superior Aliens and stupid Humans. The french apparently care about Africans

All People want to be special or at least be on the perceived moral side.

Dividing Indians was a political strategy of the British, yet you would use their arguments to correct what you perceive as an injustice today?

What exactly is the point of fighting a perceived injustice if the foundation of the owed justice is based on an injustice?
Are you by chance one of those Indians who believe that Mahabharata happened 2.4 billion years ago and involved Nuclear bows and arrows? Because British are not the ones dividing Indians. They united an already divided India by creating a single entity of British India.

Like I said earlier, diverse racial differences among the Indians facilitated the formation of caste system. 2500 years ago during the time of Buddha Shakyamuni and Asvaghosha they were having to deal with Brahmin (Indo-Aryan) superiority complex (Asvaghosha wrote Vajrasuchi to refute their theory of caste system). About 1000 years later, the medieval saints like Kabir, Ravidas etc were again tackling with same superiority complex of the Indo-Aryans (Brahmins). Hell, even 1000 years later, the likes of Dr. Ambedkar, social revolutionaries etc had to tackle with the same superiority complex. I wonder why the Hindus want to brush this facet under the carpet and pretend that it has no significance whatsoever. If they (Indo-Aryans) have maintained the superiority of their race for more than 3 millennia, a huge time frame, then there is indeed substance in categorizing Indians according to their racial origins.

I contrast the earlier Indo-Aryan migrations with the migrations of the even purer Parsi (Iranian) Aryans who form a significant group in India. They also maintain the same strict code of keeping their separate identity pure and alive in India as the Indo-Aryans may have done. There is strict code among the Parsis to not intermarry with other races/castes. They also believe in the theory of Aryan race and have been believing so before any British set foot in India. Whats more, they have always won favours from rulers like Mughals, Britishers, etc - just like how earlier Indo-Aryan Brahmins did with native Indian kings - because of their "whiteness". I have heard that many British schools that were closed for Indians in general were still open for Parsi kids.

Lastly, when even the medieval Caucasians, with their technological and social advanced, were misled into believing that other darker races were inferior, how much more can you expect from an even primitive people 1000 years earlier than these Caucasians, when they met someone of darker color?

***************


Leaving the issue of Aryans aside, lets return to the topic of Caucasoids in India of non-Aryan origins. Do you have any doubts that the Jats and Gujjars are Caucasoids? Do you believe that they were a relatively late comer compared to Aryans? Do you know the area of Haryana was once dominated by Indo-Aryan Caucasians but is today dominated by Jats? Do you know that in places like Rajasthan Jats specially discriminate against lower castes by calling them "darkie" (kolta)? This is classic case of Caucasians racially discriminating against non-Caucasoids. But Hindus want to undermean this kind of racism along with their caste system. If you have been to places like Rajasthan, you would know that most people can identify each other's castes by the accent they use to speak their language? Or even the language itself because they are so diverse that people of one village wouldn't understand anything the other one speaks in a village a few km away.
Rakshasa is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
caucasoids, india, indoaryans



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Aryans? Mohammed the Persian General History 66 January 1st, 2017 06:28 PM
Indo-Aryans and Semites Disciple Middle Eastern and African History 30 February 15th, 2014 05:06 PM
The First Indo-China War The Amyclae Asian History 13 December 24th, 2012 09:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.