Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Jul 2017 10:46

shiv wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:OT, but watch what happens at the VERY END of this video.
I was just moving away from the web-page after the "Because as a Muxxxx" stuff when I saw that.
Anirut..

And the video by Col. Kamban Ratnapradeep (as we would spell it)!

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 06 Jul 2017 10:58

SriJoy wrote:^^
the thing with Semiramis is that there is also an Assyrian queen known as Shammurammat, dated around 800s BC and a lot of the stories of historical shammurammat and legendary Semiramis are mixed together.
For eg, if Assyria invaded India,its most likely in the 900-700 AD period when Assyria was at its zenith. However, we've found no Assyrian records of invading India from archaeology.

Oh mighty parser of scientific papers, thou has missed the following slight difference (of only slightly more than a thousand and some hundred years). By 900AD, Assyria would already have become the Arab Islamic horde.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 06 Jul 2017 11:53

Shiv,

Ref your answer to my question - I do accept the evidence that Ramayana and Mahabharata are Itihas ie history. And of course the issues with colonising narratives. In fact I challenge it when anyone calls them mythology. Often people do that without even realising what they are saying. Like a discussion with a serving IAS relative who reads Rama charita manas everyday and is a devotees of Lord Ram. He also does astrology in his spare time - i.e. Office hours. One one discussion he used the word mythology and I asked him in that case why do you waste 30 mins everyday praying to mythology and most of your office time playing with what you call scientific numbers i.e. Astrology which derive from this mythology.

My point is our civilisational memory exists and is strengthened by the religion. But English schooling and so called 'historical' narratives have gone haywire. And that is why the work of Oak and others is so interesting. Which is why when JE said the wrong narratives are being challenged I was very heartened.

As a child and later as a teenager a young man and so forth I always asked these questions because things didn't compute and I knew instinctively that it's brought by colonisation but I felt very alone because in my peer group no one questioned it. Heartening to know that there is research being done on this and more people are challenging it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 12:19

SriJoy wrote:
that'd be playing at semantics. Aryan is not a sanskrit terminology. So I'd say calling someone 'Arya' in Sansrit = calling the same man 'Aryan' in English.

That is nonsense. Aryan is not an English translation of Arya by any definition other than yours. You too are playing word games

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 12:31

SriJoy wrote:
Our works FROM 1st millennium BC uses terminology 'aryadesha/aryavarta' in its writings.
We also see it in Regnal titles.
Why can't Vinasana be the spot where Ghaggar-Hakra disappears today during its seasonal flow ?

Your dates now edited. Not mine.

Do you agree that the Ghaggar Hakra is the same as the Saraswati?

syam · Post by **syam** » 06 Jul 2017 13:13

@shiv ji
Can you tell more about horses and chariots in Andronovo culture and its link to the supposed Aryan race?
Also please share If there are any archaeological records related to them.

p.s: I read your article on Swarajya. That's why asking for more. Animals exists all over the world. What's the big deal if some horses galloping in Russia few millennia back?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 14:10

SriJoy wrote:
Darius is not Assyrian. How is Darius's Behistun inscription evidence of Assyrian invasion of India ?!

Ah yes. The Assyrians came before Darius and they brought Aramaic to Gandhara, which is why one of Ashokas edicts is in Aramaic because there were Aramaic speakers in Gandhara. That is the closest archaeological evidence that I know of.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 14:20

SriJoy wrote:What do we expect English speakers to call Aryas ? A person who is arya is an aryan in the english language

Good one

Next you'll say Vega and vegan are the same.

Anyone who believes your ludicrous blather that "Arya=Aryan" needs to know that I have a white domed marble building for sale in Agra. Going cheap.

Arya is Arya, not Aryan. Aryan is Aryan, not Arya.

It's not as though Arya cannot be pronounced in English. Arya is a person who follows dharma. Aryan is a white European on a horse who kicked Dravidian butt as per your belief system.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 14:42

syam wrote:@shiv ji
Can you tell more about horses and chariots in Andronovo culture and its link to the supposed Aryan race?
Also please share If there are any archaeological records related to them.

There were/are no Aryans apart from the imagination of 19th century European racists.

Horse graves, some with chariots have been found in graves in Kazakhstan. They have also found thousands of horse bones, evidence of eating horses and drinking mare's milk.

The following paragraph is from my own notes, unpublished

The Eurasian steppe region has many ancient graves in which horses or parts of horses have
been buried along with humans. Some of these burials are elaborate and seem to be the graves of
important or wealthy people. It is claimed that burials of this type are described in the Vedas. This
is patently untrue. Not a single verse in the Vedas describes how to dig or construct a grave. No
Vedic hymn describes the burial of a king. Yet one single word in one hymn of the Rig Veda
(10.18.13) is widely quoted by archaeologists, linguists and historians as linking the Rig Veda with
“kurgan” type burials in the Eurasian steppe. David Anthony, an anthropologist and author of the
book “Horse, Wheel and Language” has commented in a paper entitled “Archaeology and
Language” 13 by saying: “One hymn (Rigveda 10.18) describes a covered burial chamber with posts
holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay—a precise description of
Sintashta and Andronovo grave pits.”

I repeat that no Vedic scholar agrees that the Vedas were meant for translation. They are not histories. Griffiths translation sounds stupid. Ancient Hindus look like stupid morons if you read the translation. The link below is what Griffiths wrote. (Rig Veda 10:18.1 to 10.18.14)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10018.htm

Tell me where it says what David Anthony the archaeologist claims: "a covered burial chamber with posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay"

These people are liars. Every single one of them. Compared to these guys Srijoy is only light entertainment - helping us to repeat stuff that needs to be said. But these archaeologists and linguists are responsible for foisting a huge fraud on Indian history That said we Indians share the blame for being far more stupid than we like to admit although boasting about our smartness is part of our culture

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 14:48

SriJoy wrote:
disagree. Arya is in Sanskrit and Aryan is in English.

It is not. I shall be quite happy to keep repeating this every time you repeat your little lie

Aryan is a white European on a horse who kicked Dravidian butt as per your belief system.

SriJoy wrote: Point out where i imply or state it is my belief system. I see you've resorted to slander.

Can you confirm that the following is not your belief system? You certainly sound like you would be happy to abide by this definition of Aryan. You have never denied it.

Aryan is a white European on a horse who kicked Dravidian butt

From your insistence on a racist derived definition that conflates Arya with Aryan I believe that it is your belief and a denial from you would help set matter right.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 14:53

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote: These people are liars. Every single one of them. Compared to these guys Srijoy is only light entertainment - helping us to repeat stuff that needs to be said. But these archaeologists and linguists are responsible for foisting a huge fraud on Indian history That said we Indians share the blame for being far more stupid than we like to admit although boasting about our smartness is part of our culture
these people are in the same boat as you- feeding nonsensical lies to the unwary public liberally mixed in with factoids. Both from a towering sense of correctness of their unsubstantiated nonsense. Which is why they come up with nonsensical ideas such as AMT or Ramayana being 14 thousand years old.

That we know. Your boat and the boat that the rest of the world exist in are different. Your boat has the letter "s" in it. "Boast" This statement is one more boast in a different avatar. But for a man who boasts so much you have great difficulty in making people agree with you.

SriJoy wrote:And yes of course, I will be public enemy #1 to both these crowds.

Not at all. You are just light entertainment thrashing about arguing with random strangers on some goddam Internet forum. Please do not give yourself more importance than you deserve

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:02

SriJoy wrote: I will keep repeating. English doesn't use Arya, it uses Aryan. Repetition does not a fact make.

-there. Corrected

SriJoy wrote:Clearly demonstrates your lack of familiarity with my comments,

LOL. You want me to become familiar with a random braggart on some random forum?

SriJoy wrote:the application has been racist, not the derivate. Deriving the term Aryan is basic English -blah blah

Semantics

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:11

SriJoy wrote: I do not seek agreement- that might be your passion, its not mine. And don't confuse criticism for a boast.
When 'setting the record straight' involves coming up with fantasical age for Ramayana, in a timeframe where no evidence of agriculture or urbanism has been substantiated in ANY multi-disciplinary field, ANYWHERE on the world, it speaks of the level of dogma you suffer from. Just a different sort than your hated AIT counterparts.

I am deeply touched by your repeated efforts to reach a diagnosis of my mental state. But I am fascinated by your need to repeat things when people say that they disagree with you. It certainly seems to me that you do not like anyone disagreeing with you, despite your transparently fraudulent protestation that you do not seek agreement. Most people let the matter rest, but you repeat yourself and your credentials and your paranoia that you are public enemy number 1. And after all this you psychoanalyse others. Like i said - light entertainment

SriJoy wrote: PS: Still waiting for proof of Assyrian presence in Indian subcontinent.

Still searching for where I said Assyrians were in the subcontinent. The Assyrians reached Gandhara. They brought Aramaic.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:13

SriJoy wrote: If you wish to form an opinion on someone that is beyond your simple emotions, i suggest you get to know their work. Or else don't form an opinion. seems pretty straightforward.

My agreeing with you or appreciating your work seem to be vitally important to you

And Arya is Arya. Not Aryan

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:21

SriJoy wrote: you've not shown any evidence of taking disagreement in stride.

No. I have not and I will not when I see a person boast and bluff. Bluffing must be refuted. And it's not about you - but what others read. The stuff you post must not go unchallenged

Arya means Arya. A Sanskrit word. Aryans do not exist. That cooked up word does not mean Arya although many Indians such as yourself (assuming you are Indian) believe that it means Arya

SriJoy wrote: False. No evidence exists to show Assyrians ever reached Gandhara or that they had any presence there. First evidence of Aramaic east of modern day Iraq is in Behistun inscriptions- made by Persians.

Does any evidence exist that Aryans brought a precursor of Sanskrit to India?

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 06 Jul 2017 15:24

Arya has a specific meaning in Samskrit which is a noble person. Arya does not represent a geography. Arya Varta represents a geography, so if we want to go by your definition, it should be AryaVartans.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:27

hanumadu wrote:Arya has a specific meaning in Samskrit which is a noble person. Arya does not represent a geography. Arya Varta represents a geography, so if we want to go by your definition, it should be AryaVartans.

Good one Hanumadu.

I also think Arya is not simply "noble". Nobility is different from people who follow dharma. All Aryas are noble. All noble people are not Aryas

Aryan means nothing. A fraud pushed on naive Indians and on history by racists

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 06 Jul 2017 15:28

SriJoy wrote:

Arya in Sanskrit & Indic languages. Aryan in English.

Shiv wrote: But I am fascinated by your need to repeat things when people say that they disagree with you.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:32

SriJoy wrote:
No bluff has been presented. Only your perception.

Semantics

SriJoy wrote:Aryan is no more 'cooked up' than 'Angreez' is cooked up word. Aryan is in English, Arya is in Sanskrit. Just like English is in English and 'Angrez' in Hindi.

Arya means follower of dharma. Aryan does not. They are not the same

SriJoy wrote: Stick to the point instead of misdirecting.Show us evidence of Assyrian presence in Gandhara for any amount of time to leave a language continuum.

I have asked you a new question. Meanwhile I will certainly search for evidence and get back to you if I find any

I ask again

Does any evidence exist that Aryans brought a precursor of Sanskrit to India?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2017 15:33

SriJoy wrote: Semantics. Even Indologists who don't think Aryans were a race ( BB Lal, Parpola, Kazanas, etc) use it to denote people, just as Arya is used to denote people.

That does not mean they are right. They are just as misinformed as you are. Naturally you look for corroboration of your beliefs from people who agree with you despite your claim that you do not seek agreement

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 06 Jul 2017 15:38

SriJoy wrote:
hanumadu wrote:Arya has a specific meaning in Samskrit which is a noble person. Arya does not represent a geography. Arya Varta represents a geography, so if we want to go by your definition, it should be AryaVartans.
Semantics. Even Indologists who don't think Aryans were a race ( BB Lal, Parpola, Kazanas, etc) use it to denote people, just as Arya is used to denote people.

Yes, blunders by you are just semantics. Every body uses Aryans to denote people even members on this forum because the faulty terminology has been established by centuries of prior use. And yes, people who do not agree with AIT still use Aryans to denote people but people who do not exist or never existed. That you have to hide behind that fact in spite of it being so obvious shows you have nothing substantial to debate.

syam · Post by **syam** » 06 Jul 2017 17:50

shiv wrote: There were/are no Aryans apart from the imagination of 19th century European racists.

Horse graves, some with chariots have been found in graves in Kazakhstan. They have also found thousands of horse bones, evidence of eating horses and drinking mare's milk.

The following paragraph is from my own notes, unpublished
~

Thanks for sharing your own notes.

I repeat that no Vedic scholar agrees that the Vedas were meant for translation. They are not histories. Griffiths translation sounds stupid. Ancient Hindus look like stupid morons if you read the translation. The link below is what Griffiths wrote. (Rig Veda 10:18.1 to 10.18.14)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10018.htm

Tell me where it says what David Anthony the archaeologist claims: "a covered burial chamber with posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay"

That hymn is from 10th book which is last in rigveda. (That translation is really stupid. I felt like reading some badly translated telugu Bible)
David misunderstood this line - let a thousand clods remain above him.
Weight should be put on the buried body so that it doesn't move while going through disintegration process. We all know the dead body should be dissolved into one of the five basic elements. Ved doesn't object to the burial of dead body. But we have to bury it properly. Mother Earth takes the body into herself. That process is intimate.

This David dude totally exaggerated small line and talking about big chambers with marble flooring. Total Idiot. Vedic people are not into materialistic stuff.

syam · Post by **syam** » 06 Jul 2017 18:18

SriJoy wrote: 1. Not all animals exist all over the world, atleast not till humans take them around. No horses in SE Asia for example till humans brought it there.

Since I follow look east policy. check these countries,
China : There were horse-driven chariots of the Shang (c. 1600 - c. 1050 BC) and Zhou (c. 1050 - 256 BC) periods
Japan: there was some cross-breeding with indigenous horses which had existed in Japan since the stone age
Burma: Burmese horses are somewhat smaller than the Chinese breed, but they are more adept at jumping. Attempts were made during the British Raj to breed Burmese horses with Arabian stock, hoping to develop an "Indo-Burman" horse breed which might be better suited to the varying conditions of the Indian subcontinent. - See they mention Arabian stock. Indian horses are Arabian not Steppe variety. I reject this too. Arabian horse is actually Indian. Like how they lifted our mathematics, they lifted our breeds too.

We have silk route connecting all of these countries. Why Ignore this?

2. Kura-Araxes culture is a better match for horse-drawn chariot culture, at an earlier date, than Andronovo. As i said, there are 3 competing theories on Indo-European homeland : Steppes, Indian subcontinent and Anatolia. Association of Aryan with central Asian/Anatolian branches is purely imaginary.

Indians are from Indian subcontinent. We are from here. Our books and stories says so. And we never expanded to westward. But we have big footprint all over the eastern Asia.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 06 Jul 2017 18:36

1: Tell me how these Aryans brought sanskrit to India.
2. Haha - you said Aryans. You therefor accept that they are a people.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Jul 2017 23:08

I've heard it said somewhere (in home circles) that Adi Sankara had referred to southern India as "Dravida Nadu"... Is this accurate? Can someone verify this ...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 07 Jul 2017 00:03

Nadu yes is land, not only in Tamil. But "Dravida"? The reason I asked is that now these buggers are labelling even DNA test results as "40% Dravidian" and so on....

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 07 Jul 2017 00:18

JEM ji

What you quoted about Shanakara stating 'Dravida' as southern India is accurate. I do not have actual reference.
--
Srimad Bhagavata Purana also has few references to 'Dravida'

8:4:7 Gajendra -Moksha incident. The Gajendra is described as, previously Pandya king Indradymna (Dravida)

8:24:13 (Satyavrata- Manu as 'Dravide-shwar'), again at 9:1:2 etc.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 00:26

SriJoy wrote:
hanumadu wrote:Arya has a specific meaning in Samskrit which is a noble person. Arya does not represent a geography. Arya Varta represents a geography, so if we want to go by your definition, it should be AryaVartans.
Semantics. Even Indologists who don't think Aryans were a race ( BB Lal, Parpola, Kazanas, etc) use it to denote people, just as Arya is used to denote people.

"Arya SriJoy" is not the same as "India is a land of the Arya." - the latter as Hanumadu correctly pointed out is Aryavarta
("Where Arya are present" need not be geographic, but has been used that way in many puranas etc. to denote the geographic region of greater India).

In Sanskrit it is common to use आर्य or आर्या for male and female noble individuals... the word Arya is embedded in a large number of Sanskrit words - आचार्य (teacher), उच्चार्य (pronounce), कार्य (work), कार्यालयः (place of work), कौमार्य (childhood), धार्यते (utilized), नार्यः (women), प्रसार्य (hold forth), etc. This means, the word has existed for a long time and has been used in so many different ways not limiting it to specific people, language or skin color. There is some grey area on who could be considered noble and who could not be... this had to do with who conducted sacrifices and who did not...

but it was never meant to denote race - as that concept did not exist at that time. Race is an European creation. There is no term in Sanskrit for 'race," just as I bet you there is no term for "Jati" or "Varna" in English or any European language - If you say "Caste" it goes back to being a racist Portuguese!
Hope you see the difference between a person being addressed as noble from a term depicting "race"

Indians of education must consider the word "Aryan" the equivalent of the N word for African origin people!
If someone uses this word to denote people, then he or she is a RACIST!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 00:27

Pulikeshi wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
Semantics. Even Indologists who don't think Aryans were a race ( BB Lal, Parpola, Kazanas, etc) use it to denote people, just as Arya is used to denote people.
"Arya SriJoy" is not the same as "India is a land of the Arya." - the latter as Hanumadu correctly pointed out is Aryavarta
("Where Arya are present" need not be geographic, but has been used that way in many puranas etc. to denote the geographic region of greater India).

In Sanskrit it is common to use आर्य or आर्या for male and female noble individuals... the word Arya is embedded in a large number of Sanskrit words - आचार्य (teacher), उच्चार्य (pronounce), कार्य (work), कार्यालयः (place of work), कौमार्य (childhood), धार्यते (utilized), नार्यः (women), प्रसार्य (hold forth), etc. This means, the word has existed for a long time and has been used in so many different ways not limiting it to specific people, language or skin color. There is some grey area on who could be considered noble and who could not be... this had to do with who conducted sacrifices and who did not...

but it was never meant to denote race - as that concept did not exist at that time. Race is an European creation. There is no term in Sanskrit for 'race," just as I bet you there is no term for "Jati" or "Varna" in English or any European language - If you say "Caste" it goes back to being a racist Portuguese!
Hope you see the difference between a person being addressed as noble from a term depicting "race"

Indians of education must consider the word "Aryan" the equivalent of the N word for African origin people!
If someone uses this word, then he or she is a RACIST!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 00:28

Pulikeshi wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:
"Arya SriJoy" is not the same as "India is a land of the Arya." - the latter as Hanumadu correctly pointed out is Aryavarta
("Where Arya are present" need not be geographic, but has been used that way in many puranas etc. to denote the geographic region of greater India).

In Sanskrit it is common to use आर्य or आर्या for male and female noble individuals... the word Arya is embedded in a large number of Sanskrit words - आचार्य (teacher), उच्चार्य (pronounce), कार्य (work), कार्यालयः (place of work), कौमार्य (childhood), धार्यते (utilized), नार्यः (women), प्रसार्य (hold forth), etc. This means, the word has existed for a long time and has been used in so many different ways not limiting it to specific people, language or skin color. There is some grey area on who could be considered noble and who could not be... this had to do with who conducted sacrifices and who did not...

but it was never meant to denote race - as that concept did not exist at that time. Race is an European creation. There is no term in Sanskrit for 'race," just as I bet you there is no term for "Jati" or "Varna" in English or any European language - If you say "Caste" it goes back to being a racist Portuguese!
Hope you see the difference between a person being addressed as noble from a term depicting "race"

Indians of education must consider the word "Aryan" the equivalent of the N word for African origin people!
If someone uses this word, then he or she is a RACIST!

(unless of course you are using the word to call the racists as racists

)

syam · Post by **syam** » 07 Jul 2017 00:29

SriJoy wrote: 1. Arabian horses are not Indian horses.

Prove it.
There is no such thing as Arabian horse. They used to do trading using camels. With no grass to graze and not enough water, it is entirely hostile terrain for them. Thus my theory holds. Horses are from Indian subcontinent. Like mathematics, this thing also lifted by them.

2. Our own literature has hints of our westward/northward expansion.

Yes. We expanded our empire both ways. But there is no Rama temple or any Hindu temple on that side while entire east Asia has rich Hindu footprint.
Me thinks the whole west are barbarians few centuries back. Only our eastern side had rich cultural history.

3. 'Our books say so' is not evidence. Its a claim. If everyone went by their books of mythology, we'd never find a common thread to history of mankind.

Who told you our books are only about mythology? Mahabharata and Ramayana are not the only available material. They are just popular.
We have other books too. Please check.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 00:31

Sorry for the mess above - had a bad internet connection where I am

Hope the admins can clean up my post if needed...

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 00:49

Nilesh Oak wrote:JEM ji

What you quoted about Shanakara stating 'Dravida' as southern India is accurate. I do not have actual reference.

Drav (Dravya - meaning liquid or water) and Vida (Veedu or Beedu - meaning land or ridge) would perhaps mean peninsular -
but not sure how one says South or Southern from the word itself... it could even mean someone from Gujarat for example...
On Shankara using Dravida - This one could be mired in the controversies surrounding Sringeri and Kanchi Mutts -
5th century BCE vs. CE - but that is a religious debate

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 07 Jul 2017 00:55

Pulikeshi wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:JEM ji

What you quoted about Shanakara stating 'Dravida' as southern India is accurate. I do not have actual reference.
Drav (Dravya - meaning liquid or water) and Vida (Veedu or Beedu - meaning land or ridge) would perhaps mean peninsular -
but not sure how one says South or Southern from the word itself... it could even mean someone from Gujarat for example...
On Shankara using Dravida - This one could be mired in the controversies surrounding Sringeri and Kanchi Mutts -
5th century BCE vs. CE - but that is a religious debate

According to Subramanian Swamy, Dra-vida (or Tra-vida) means "the place where three waters meet" or "land surrounded by water on three sides". i.e. a strictly geographical description of Peninsular India.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 01:01

SriJoy wrote:
It has been used to denote race, but it is an English appealation of the word. As i said, even if western academia starts using the word similar to Indic usage, it'd still be Aryan.
And its disingteneous to conflate it with the N-word or C-word, as the term itself is not a racist derogatory term.

PS: don't forget aryadesha. We also used that term liberally in 1st millennium AD.

So you will not be offended if I were to say you are a racist as you are using a word that denigrates me and my kind

Let those who want to use the word correctly use AryaVartha or AryaDesha or something else to denote geography...
but again there is no word for our people - if at all one where to use a word it would be Arya nothing more or less!

If you had said Negro or even the N word not too long ago, someone like you would have said, like you do now, it is not a racist word, it is just an appelation! It just means someone from Africa!

If you use the word Aryan in a conversation in most of the West it is considered a racist word already - try writing about the Aryans in any western mainstream newspapers! How about this - we go to schools in the US (say rural Alabama

) and say to kids - write an essay on the Aryans - what do you think that essay will be about?

Aryan is a racist word and anyone who uses it is a racist!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 07 Jul 2017 01:01

Thank you Nilesh. Didn't know about the references in the Bhagavata Purana.

On a separate note, posting the below if it hasn't been posted here before

Indian Civilization: Part 1: Genetic History of India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGqgaK-9els

Indian Civilization: Part 2: Astronomical Observations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2h6Cr6_GMc

Akshay, when I said a comprehensive attack is happening from multiple prongs and channels, this is the sort of thing I was referring to. In the past there was no pushback and nothing even remotely "academic"... Nowadays, this sort of thing is cropping up all over the place.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 07 Jul 2017 01:05

Pulikeshi wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:JEM ji

What you quoted about Shanakara stating 'Dravida' as southern India is accurate. I do not have actual reference.
Drav (Dravya - meaning liquid or water) and Vida (Veedu or Beedu - meaning land or ridge) would perhaps mean peninsular -
but not sure how one says South or Southern from the word itself... it could even mean someone from Gujarat for example...
On Shankara using Dravida - This one could be mired in the controversies surrounding Sringeri and Kanchi Mutts -
5th century BCE vs. CE - but that is a religious debate

Thanks. I should have stated.. "Dravida.. as referring to Southern India" not as some etymological meaning of it referring to 'South' or 'South India"

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 01:17

SriJoy wrote: Explain to me why Aryan its racist but 'Angrez' is not.

Angrez may be racist to the denizens of the UK - why should I worry about what Anglia thinks or does not? Aryan is racist to me and my kind!

SriJoy wrote: Except Negro has been used derogatively, meaning inferior. Aryan has been used exactly the opposite- to denote super-race.

Yes Aryan has been used by racists to bustardije the opposite - fix them to use the correct word Arya never the racist derivative!

SriJoy wrote: from that angle, you are correct. But historians have been using the words Aryan for longer than Hitler popularized the word in the west for superiorism.
why should we let the racists claim a word for their own which originates from our language in the first place ?!
they corrupted that word,just like they corrupted the swastika. We need to claim them back both.

You mean Imperialist Racists who are hell bent on destroying India's history, heritage and civilization!

Swastika is good to claim back as it is a Sanskrit word with a specific meaning that has been corrupted... Aryan is a made up racist word!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 01:29

I guess a cracker is just a cookie sometimes - there is nothing racist for you are ideologically well positioned to counter!

SriJoy wrote: If you think that every single western historian is out to get you, its called persecution complex. Swastika is aslo an English word, FYI. Not Sanskrit. Just like 'Aryan'. Just as the word is not 'Aryan but Arya' in Sanskrit, 'Swastika' is an English word.

Aryan from her majesty's source for the sepoys!

In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan” to mean the “white race.” Members of that so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,” “yellows,” and “blacks.” Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.” That notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.”

Millions were killed, maimed and persecuted in this name - Aryan - to be blind to it is criminal, to not acknowledge it as racist is cowardice! Those historians still using this term perpetuate their agenda in a weaponized form no different and even more lethal than the physical oppression demonstrated by the racists in the earlier century!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Jul 2017 01:45

SriJoy wrote: And be realistic- nobody in the west will accept the word 'Arya' as amazing, noble, enlightened beings while 'Aryan' remains conflated with racist superiorists.

Who cares? I care about my people and my civilization - its our job to make everyone else care!

SriJoy wrote: You may not care about what the westerners think. But i do. Not because i 'feel inferior' to them, but because they are currently in charge of academia and form the nexus of knowledge and research.Because of that reason, their views come to dominate world view. When that changes, i will happily stop fighting western academia on certain issues.

So Gandhiji should have sat on his rear side when he got kicked out of the train? He should have suffered the N- or K- word...
As we do Aryan today!