Did the British Create Hinduism? (Rome, influences, Britain, kings)

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by majoun

Judaism came to India a few hundred years before Christ, and Christianity came to India in 100 CE. They didn't affect India as much as Islam did, obviously.

Interestingly, Hindutva nationalists regard Judaism as a traditional religion of India and do not hate it like they hate Christianity and Islam (probably because it does not proselytize) .

Makes sense. Hindus do not proselytize and thoughts and practices from other religions easily migrate to Hindus.

[shanv3]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Are you arguing that the Aryans were native to, and not invaders from outside, the Indian subcontinent?

Yes.

If you think no, please provide logical answers for Sanskrit being an European language or the origins of Aryans. IMO its just another attempt to paint Western superiority over everything.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by shanv3

Yes.

If you think no, please provide logical answers for Sanskrit being an European language or the origins of Aryans. IMO its just another attempt to paint Western superiority over everything.

I posted this earlier:

How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate - The Hindu

One by one, therefore, every single one of the genetic arguments that were earlier put forward to make the case against Bronze Age migrations of Indo-European language speakers have been disproved. To recap:

1. The first argument was that there were no major gene flows from outside to India in the last 12,500 years or so because mtDNA data showed no signs of it. This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage. The reason why mtDNA data behaved differently was that Bronze Age migrations were severely sex-biased.

2. The second argument put forward was that R1a lineages exhibited much greater diversity in India than elsewhere and, therefore, it must have originated in India and spread outward. This has been proved false because a mammoth, global study of R1a haplogroup published last year showed that R1a lineages in India mostly belong to just three subclades of the R1a-Z93 and they are only about 4,000 to 4,500 years old.

3. The third argument was that there were two ancient groups in India, ANI and ASI, both of which settled here tens of thousands of years earlier, much before the supposed migration of Indo-European languages speakers to India. This argument was false to begin with because ANI — as the original paper that put forward this theoretical construct itself had warned — is a mixture of multiple migrations, including probably the migration of Indo-European language speakers.

Are you claiming that Hindu "nationalism" trumps science?

[shanv3]

So are you claiming Sanskrit is European and Aryans got that to India??

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by shanv3

So are you claiming Sanskrit is European and Aryans got that to India??

Tamil is not a root of Sanskrit, unlike other languages. They were the Dravidian.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by shanv3

So are you claiming Sanskrit is European and Aryans got that to India??

Sanskrit and Indo-European languages (Greek, Latin, German, Gaelic, etc.) are clearly related, derived from the same root language (Proto-Indo-European, or PIE). Hindu nationalists have asserted that PIE originated in India. The latest DNA evidence, which I cited above, definitively says otherwise.

[shanv3]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Sanskrit and Indo-European languages (Greek, Latin, German, Gaelic, etc.) are clearly related, derived from the same root language (Proto-Indo-European, or PIE). Hindu nationalists have asserted that PIE originated in India. The latest DNA evidence, which I cited above, definitively says otherwise.

Can you describe who are Hindu nationalists ??

[shanv3]

Since you cannot answer and keep inventing terms , let me tell you something. Time takes care of everything but These languages themselves havent changed for over 5-10 milleniums. How old were these researches?? 100 years ?? 200 years??

There is a conflict in the middle east for last 70 years. What evidence do you have to prove that each fighting party is correct in their understanding??

[ABQConvict]

The originators of Proto-Indo-European were neither Indian nor European. That is why it is called "Proto".

They are the ancestors of all those peoples/cultures.

[TrueTamilTiger]

Holy hell, how did this topic suddenly digress from its premise to talking about the etymology of Sanskrit?

Lol.