Ancestry Of Jats

[pmaitra]

With black hair? Hahaha, More like a Japnese to me

So my point is , they started this word Aryan and they did not say 'we came from xyz land' And Using word Aryan to describe human being on the basis of region is false.

You asked me whether I had ever seen a white chimp. You got your answer. The colour of the hair is a distraction. Many white people have black hair too.

Ok, so your point is that they (the sages mentioned in the Vedas?) started this word Aryan (absolutely wrong, considering Arian was already a place in Iran), and they did not say ". . ." (how do you know they did not say that?).

I agree with the last part. The word Aryan has another meaning, as in noble, but that could have developed because the settlers considered themselves noble.

Ok people first of all there is no AIT it has been debunked as pseudo science but there is clear misinterpretation of OIT theory also.

Bro, repeatedly claiming AIT/AMT has been "debunked" will not debunk anything.

All I get is proclamations and this oft repeated word "debunked," but no argument whatsoever.

Mitochondrial DNA is matrilineal. This is hardly a proper way to judge a person's ancestry. If you use that method, and if in an overwhelming cases in the past, men of a certain ethnicity took wives from another, then we would find no trace of the father's side of the ethnicity if we study the mitochondrial DNA of the offsprings.

AIT theory is a clear mental masturbation of racist Europeans because. . .

Why talk about "masturbation?" Are you angry with yourself that you are failing to make your point?

 

[Simple_Guy]

I claim mixed ancestry, not foreign ancestry.

So do the Pakis! They believe the mythical Aryan theory as well as the Scythian theory.

Rewriting of history was done in the Colonial occupation of India. All the anti-India forces since then are united in propagating these foreign invasion theories: pakis, leftists, missionaries, and some clueless NRIs.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Official paki govt claims on history

Punjabi people are generally believed to be the descendants of Indo-Aryan, Indo-Parthian and Indo-Scythian. With the advent of Islam, settlers from Persia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Central Asia have also integrated into Punjabi society from whom many Pakistani Punjabis claim descent. However the majority of Punjab is still made up of the native Jatt, Rajputs, Khatris, Aheers and Gujjars.

The people known as Sindhis today are mainly the product of Aryan-Dravidian intermarriages.

So the Paki mentality is the continuation of cock-and-bull British theories which @pmaitra subscribes to.

 

[pmaitra]

So do the Pakis! They believe the mythical Aryan theory as well as the Scythian theory.

Rewriting of history was done in the Colonial occupation of India. All the anti-India forces since then are united in propagating these foreign invasion theories: pakis, leftists, missionaries, and some clueless NRIs.

Saka, Yavana, Pahlavas are well mentioned in our ancient texts. Perhaps read up a bit? I mean not Sangh Parivar leaflets, but actual texts?

Official paki govt claims on history



So the Paki mentality is the continuation of cock-and-bull British theories which @pmaitra subscribes to.

You can interpret things whatever way you want. You are wrong, but I am not going to repeat myself. I have said what I have said already in this thread.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Saka, Yavana, Pahlavas are well mentioned in our ancient texts.

Yeah, as foreigners.

But not as founding fathers of entire communities as the Brit/paki/nri clowns like to claim!

 

[Razor]

And what proof you have AIT ? I never said OIT is true. Stop arguing strawmans.

And neither did I say AIT/AMT is true. I said it is more probable.

Disproving OIT does not make AIT valid. As I said you guys sound like creationists who think they can prove gods existence by disproving evolution and talk trash about evolution.

Me not giving links for why OIT is true has more to do with laziness to educate identity crisised idiots rather than lack of knowledge.

Seriously you are proving to be as dumb as athiest Hindu with each post. Look at all the change of goal posts you have done.- first you claims AIT was true due to genetics. We provided evidence against it using genetics which show AIT never happened. You then claimed it cultural migration. I just showed there is no evidence for it. Now you have again flip flopped to migration and how migrants brought the Sanskrit with them. Seriously do you have so much desperation to prove your ancestors got fucked by invaders. If that means that much to you you can believe that and I could not care less.


This will be my last reply to you considering you have joined pmaitra in being an ideological stuck up rather than wanting to know the truth

First, the creationist thing is a straw man and second, maybe laziness, but without telling us what it is that your theory is, you have nicely shielded your theory from scrutiny.
And bringing in my (and everybody else's) ancestors shows your insecurity and lack of cultured upbringing.

 

[Razor]

Can anyone , with adequate knowledge about Aryan "Invasion" , could rightly point out the below contradictions:

1. Invasion takes place, when one party dominates, in terms of military might over the other. So, it was consistently said that , Aryans were master in horse's , so invasion was easy.

But, horses have their origin in Indian-subcontinent. So , how come the "indigenous" people were not "good" at it.

2. How come, you can "forcefully" displace people living in an inducive environment , from their birth place, on which they have lived over thousands of years ? It's simply impossible to change the social geography of the place, without a great violence.

Maybe give more info (a link, a credible source) for the underlined??

 

[pmaitra]

Yeah, as foreigners.

But not as founding fathers of entire communities as the Brit/paki/nri clowns like to claim!

You can argue for or against or orthogonally with this "founding fathers" stuff with whoever made such a claim. Why bring this up here, unless you are looking for a strawman to continue to argue on something where no dispute exists?

 

[Razor]

You can argue for or against or orthogonally with this "founding fathers" stuff with whoever made such a claim. Why bring this up here, unless you are looking for a strawman to continue to argue on something where no dispute exists?

"founding fathers"

 

[pmaitra]

And neither did I say AIT/AMT is true. I said it is more probable.



First, the creationist thing is a straw man and second, maybe laziness, but without telling us what it is that your theory is, you have nicely shielded your theory from scrutiny.
And bringing in my (and everybody else's) ancestors shows your insecurity and lack of cultured upbringing.

I agree. AIT/AMT is more probable.

Regarding @Mad Indian, he brought up the family of @PredictablyMalicious and I gave him a mild warning, but he petulantly and obdurately defended his obscene behaviour. We all use rough words in exceptional cases, but he uses it as a norm. If this is his language in his day to day interactions with other people, then I must assume that he is a very lonely person and is avoided by anyone who doesn't want to get down into the muck and wrestle with him.

"founding fathers"

Well, at least he used the word "fathers." Had it been @Mad Indian, he would have used another word that begins with the letter 'f'.

 

[Simple_Guy]

You can argue for or against or orthogonally with this "founding fathers" stuff with whoever made such a claim.

Since you brought in "paki mentality", it needed to be explored thoroughly.

Why bring this up here

You brought in Scythian link and made spurious claims on foreign ancestry of "some" Rajputs.

 

[pmaitra]

Since you brought in "paki mentality", it needed to be explored thoroughly.



You brought in Scythian link and made spurious claims on foreign ancestry of "some" Rajputs.

Spurious or not, you first prove where I said that foreigners are the "founding fathers."

What part of "some" do you not understand?

I said what I said. I am not going to defend your flawed interpretation of what I have written.

 

[Simple_Guy]

you first prove where I said that foreigners are the "founding fathers."

You first prove where I called you a brit, a paki, or an nri clown?

I am addressing a mentality which ascribes foreign ancestry to several communities/clans.

 

[pmaitra]

You first prove where I called you a brit, a paki, or an nri clown?

I am addressing a mentality which ascribes foreign ancestry to several communities/clans.

You quoted me, in this post, and when challenged, you got defensive and made an unsuccessful attempt to prove "founding fathers" in this post, and now, you are backtracking, in this post.

Thank you. I take it as your admission that I never claimed anything about "founding fathers." I made a very specific point, about "some" Rajputs, not about all Indians.

 

[Simple_Guy]

I made a very specific point, about "some" Rajputs, not about all Indians.

And don't forget the "Scythian link" post in this thread on Jats. As well as posts on the mythical "Aryans" and showing maps as "proof".
LOL

 

[pmaitra]

And don't forget the "Scythian link" post in this thread on Jats. As well as posts on the mythical "Aryans" and showing maps as "proof".
LOL

No, I have not forgotten that post of mine. What is your point?

That is why I mentioned Sakas. Sakas (Sanskrit) = Cimmerians (Greek) = Scythian (English).

Neither are Aryans mythical. Aryans exist even today. They are the Iranians. Iran means the land of Aryans. Yes, they have, over the ages, mingled with other ethnicities, but they still exist. Nothing mythical about it.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Neither are Aryans mythical. Aryans exist even today.

Prove it. And if you (obviously) can't then don't make such spurious claims.

Iran means the land of Aryans.

It's far more likely that Iran is a corruption of the word Eran found in the Sassanid inscription. Their dates are from 224 AD to 651 AD. Are you now claiming that the mythical "aryans" sprung up in this period?

Getting back to the topic:

Jat political system

 

[Mad Indian]

And neither did I say AIT/AMT is true. I said it is more probable

.
More monkey saults but I will bite any way. Give your reasons and evidence for that. I know you cant

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm

First, the creationist thing is a straw man and second, maybe laziness, but without telling us what it is that your theory is, you have nicely shielded your theory from scrutiny.

It is already there on so many posts - why AIT is crap and why Indian population is indigenous

And bringing in my (and everybody else's) ancestors shows your insecurity and lack of cultured upbringing.

Duh, its not my problem that you claim ancestry from Europeans and central asians. Its pathetic.

 

[Mad Indian]

Prove it. And if you (obviously) can't then don't make such spurious claims.



It's far more likely that Iran is a corruption of the word Eran found in the Sassanid inscription. Their dates are from 224 AD to 651 AD. Are you now claiming that the mythical "aryans" sprung up in this period?

Getting back to the topic:

Jat political system

You are asking proofs from ideologically stunted clowns who would rather stew in their own BS than learn anything. Too bad you are not going to get anything which has not already been debunked as crap

 

[Simple_Guy]

A related myth is the one according to which "Iran" means the "land of Aryans." This myth was propagated by Max Müller, who claimed in 1862 that the term airyanem vaejah found in the Avesta is the ancestor of "Iran" and means the "Aryan expanse." This myth became so widespread that serious scholars propagate it even to this day. Suffice it to look at a dictionary.

By contrast, Gnoli contends that airyanem vaejah is not a historical land, but a legendary, cosmogonic concept in Zoroastrianism. Additionally, the "land of Aryans" would suppose that the inhabitants of the Achaemenid or Sasanian empires were racially conscious in a manner similar to nineteenth-century Europeans.

This is of course highly unlikely, particularly given that the Iranian plateau already -- as it has ever since -- featured a complex mix of populations. Out of 30,000 tablets excavated in Persepolis, not one was written in Persian (most are in Elamite, and a few are in Aramean).

In fact, the empire was a melting pot. To imagine that its inhabitants believed that a territory must belong to one people is an anachronistic projection of modern ideas onto the distant past. The presence of Arabs on the Iranian plateau and Iranians in the Arabian Peninsula is also attested, but somehow ignored by the prophets of Aryanism.

The now ubiquitous concept of the "Aryan race" first appeared in Iran in the 1890s.

Iranian identity

Fascinating article