Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may look like that but it isnt. There are 4 major languages spoken - Tamil , Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada which are classfied as Dravidian. And apart from the capital and Mumbai, those regions fare better than any other Hindi speaking state.
The lower caste people still get discriminated and face oppression irrespective of their linguistic origin.
When I quoted "autochthonous", I didn't mean population groups that hadn't migrated in earlier (from Iran, Afghanistan, Tibet/Nepal, Burma, etc.), but ones that had been long resident. The Athenians thought they were autochthonous (it's their word, meaning "born from the land"), although we now know they mostly migrated in with the rest of the Mycenaeans from the Balkans 1,000 years or so before.
The impact of the Indo-Europeans was more cultural and linguistic than genetic. Being heavily male-biased, they took wives from the local area, and might have had Iranian (Elamite?) mothers. Their sons and daughters likely took mates from the indigenous population. They likely established alliances and treaties with non-Indo-European "princes" they couldn't defeat, which usually involved bride exchanges.
According to the study I posted earlier, the caste-system wasn't firmly established until following the collapse of the Guptas. The Athenians did something similar, restricting membership to the Aristocratic classes only around 500 BC to those whose parents were both Aristocrats, while prior to that only your father had to be noble for you to be noble as well. Previously, the marriage ban had been one-way: noble males could marry non-noble females, while non-noble males could not marry noble females (or at least have their children "recognized"). Restricting intermarriage both ways (locking down membership to the top castes) was likely done to protect the power, land-rights, and incomes of a small group of leading families, and to exclude competing families with more doubtful genealogies. I'm not saying that is what happened in India, but something similar might have.
In Europe, the Indo-Europeans replaced all of the earlier languages, except for Finnish, Basque, Iberian, and Etruscan (the latter two now extinct). That was far from the case in the Indian Subcontinent. There were undoubtedly skin-color differences between North and South India, on evolutionary grounds alone, that predated the Indo-European migrations.
The "people" also didn't readily give up their religious and traditional beliefs - if required to honor the patriarchal "sky" and "war" gods of the invaders, that didn't mean they stopped performing their own ceremonies and sacrifices or worshiping their own (matriarchal?) goddesses and gods. Eventually the two belief-systems merged, becoming a single, but syncretic, religion.
The question of whether "the core of Indian culture lay in Sanskrit, the Vedic tradition and the Vedanta", underpinned by the caste system, rather than being a system of cultural, social, economic, and racial hegemony and oppression imposed, at least initially, by lighter-skinned Indo-European invaders (designating themselves as "noble", or Aryan) on a darker-skinned indigenous population, and the role of the British in further intensifying and supporting it, is very much at the heart of this discussion, it seems to me. At least the latest Y-DNA results have punctured the central presupposition that is involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanv3
And there is no way you or anyone can prove "the lighter skinned" invaders. Just see the timeline or chronology of events connecting Max Mueller, Hitler, Aryan invasion theory etc. Everything were comfortably created at the end of 18th century. The Germans had no real history to stick to, so they invented those terms to benefit them. The Germans needed some history and British needed to erase some. So there came these Aryan lies.
I am not denying any migration or people or DNA tests. But the history distorters needs to come up with some more convincing lies to succeed.
To conclude, core of Indian culture never lay in Sanskrit, no oppression took place in terms of color. If it was why do Tamilians build huge temples and perform services in Sanskrit till date??
The term "Indo-European" came about due to linguistic similarities between Indian/Sanskrit-based and many European languages. It designates a family of languages, descending from a commonly shared language-heritage (PIE), and not a specific racial/genetic group. It can in no way be inferred to signify racial or ethnic superiority/purity.
Genes for skin-color, light or dark, are selected for based on latitude and sun exposure. That invaders from the north (not just Indo-Europeans, but also Scythians, Macedonians, Kushans, White Huns, etc.) were lighter-skinned is simply a matter of their geographic origination (the northern Eurasian steppes). Tamils/Dravidians, however, originated from Southeast Asia...
Alburqurque did have a policy of favoring and/or producing a light skinned Brahman class of collaborators & persecuting other sects & social classes, but again given as I said earlier of the decentralized system (even with governors & governed being of different sects) it did not seem that this more color (or again creed) caste consciousness penetrated from its coastal stronghold toward the interior, at least before the 19th century according to Humboldt.
Thus the light and sanguine complexion appears to be the character of many but not of all in the northern and hilly countries of Hindustan and the higher castes who are protected from the influence of the climate are generally fairer that is the children at birth or soon after are generally fairer than among the people of low castes who are exposed. But neither of these observations holds in all individual cases since there are black Hindoos in Proper Hindustan and even some black Brahmans of high caste.
What we have here is the classic exception to the rule. Note that he writes that there are "even some black Brahmans of high caste", meaning not many (and the same for lighter-skinned low-caste individuals, I assume). The original pre-Indo-Aryan occupants of north India also likely were lighter-skinned. I linked earlier to a genetic study that found that strict endogamy did not start until after the Gupta Empire. The Indo-Aryans never controlled all of India and likely expanded their territory as much through marriage alliances as through conquest.
I was upbraided for citing a book published in 2007. This one is from 1844.
You still haven't given the name of the Kings who came and invaded. I can think of Mongols, Romans and Muslims. But these were in the last 2000 years. Please give names prior to that to establish credibility or proof. Himmler or Goebbels method or repeating the same lie wont work here.
You still haven't given the name of the Kings who came and invaded. I can think of Mongols, Romans and Muslims. But these were in the last 2000 years. Please give names prior to that to establish credibility or proof. Himmler or Goebbels method or repeating the same lie wont work here.
What we have here is the classic exception to the rule. Note that he writes that there are "even some black Brahmans of high caste", meaning not many (and the same for lighter-skinned low-caste individuals, I assume). The original pre-Indo-Aryan occupants of north India also likely were lighter-skinned. I linked earlier to a genetic study that found that strict endogamy did not start until after the Gupta Empire. The Indo-Aryans never controlled all of India and likely expanded their territory as much through marriage alliances as through conquest.
I was upbraided for citing a book published in 2007. This one is from 1844.
The original Pre Indo Aryans occupants I mean . Did they vanish into thin air without leaving any trace?
The original Pre Indo Aryans occupants I mean . Did they vanish into thin air without leaving any trace?
Of course not. That doesn't mean that, in many cases, they didn't gain new overlords. No different than what happened in Europe, although language replacement was even more thorough there.
If memory serves me correct, I think Gandhi wanted to take a more decentralized, local approach to building a new society, from the syncretic rural perspective.
One must also remember that not only was Nehru (as well as many of his generation) heavily influenced by the Lenista revolution & League Against Imperialism but {along with Sukarno & NASSER Es Saheedi EL Misri} was as well inspired by the commie Tito of the 3rd Way <positively neutral when it came to the Stalinist & plantation globalist blocs>.
Way different from the plantation identity politics currently rampant through the world.
If memory serves me correct, I think Gandhi wanted to take a more decentralized, local approach to building a new society, from the syncretic rural perspective.
One must also remember that not only was Nehru (as well as many of his generation) heavily influenced by the Lenista revolution & League Against Imperialism but {along with Sukarno & NASSER Es Saheedi EL Misri} was as well inspired by the commie Tito of the 3rd Way <positively neutral when it came to the Stalinist & plantation globalist blocs>.
Way different from the plantation identity politics currently rampant through the world.
Forgot to mention the commie Afro-Asian Asabiya groups, particularly in more southernly India (inspired but not beholden to the Maoists).
Many different flavors even Trotskyites in Ceylon.
Different generations, different regional & local sub-cultures, different identity groups.
Did the British create Hinduism? No. Study ancient history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
