pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
Humans transitioned from hunting/gathering to farming. Thus, humans transitioned from being mobile to sedentary. This applies to all. Some groups became sedentary earlier, while some later. So, everyone originated from martial races"Martial race" was a term applied by the British to fool Indians whose support they wanted after the 1857 war of independence. There must be Brits who are still laughing their asses off at the way some groups loyally served the British simply because they were praised as being "martial"
Pakistanis were prime dodos in believing that they were "martial"
Here is a quote from the book "Pakistan Failed State"
Nobody served the British because they were praised as martial.
People allied with the British either because their local kings wanted to do so as part of political alliances, or because despite fighting bravely, like the Nepalis, they were defeated in the face of superior technology and training.
I reject your "due to genetics" comment. Not true at all. There is no genetic evidence that there was no migration, as you claim, in which case, all Indians would have had to originate from within India.I pulled nothing out of anything.
What I said is only the logical conclusion of his stance. Its not my problem that his original statement is turns out to be that impossible
His original account on AIT/AMT being complete garbage due to genetics is that that there was no migration but rather only cultural shift/migration from Aryans into India rather than direct migration of Aryans bringing in the Aryan culture and language (and of course as per the original AIT which claims that Vedas are written by Aryan invaders and hence here it would mean that Vedas came from Aryan cultural migration).
Cultural transfer occurs from high cultured civilisations to low cultured ones/nomads. You will see that from Greek and later Roman civilisational culture spreading to western Europe while not into India and Indian civilisation spreading unto south east Asia (the indosphere of the south east Asia which is the whole south east Asia except Vietnam which was sino influenced). Also how India influenced the Chinese society rather than Chinese influencing us. This is how culture always works- from high culure/higher successful states to lower successful states.
So when someone claims that Aryan migration was migration of culturr- what it indirectly means is that the supposed aryans had better culture than the people who adopted Aryan culture (in this case IVC or Indian civilisation before Aryans as espoused by the AMT advocates). So what they are claiming is essentially the nomadic Aryans who had not yet discovered agriculture yet(they are nomads duh!) Some how had a better culture and language and religion which got adopted by the IVC or the Indian civilisation. Yeah , it is as retarded as it sounds. And its not my problem that AMT is sounding that retarded when I lay out the logical conclusions of that theory
As I said, AIT /AMT advocates have to resort to all these mental gymnastics to even support something as basic as origin of language. For these people , somehow some nomads who don't know agriculture were the ones who came up with Sanskrit and Hindu culture and not the well settled advanced civilisation at the time of 2000bce which is the IVC or the Indian civilisation. Yeah right. Somehow the concept of Sanskrit originating here in India looks too implausible to them. I mean come on stupid Indians can never have discovered something as great as Sanskrit or Vedas. No . it must have been nomads called Aryans from whom the culture of Sanskrit and Vedas passed down to stupid well settled, civilisation of Indians.
All you need to do is travel around India and see the diversity. Indians are very diverse. One does not need genetic evidence. What we see with our eyes is evidence enough that Indians are an eclectic mix.