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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3129
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 11 May 2018 09:28

RoyG wrote:
Rudradev wrote:Gandharva ji one humble request. I am honoured that you have, in the past, tweeted my observations on your Twitter timeline. I would, however, ask you not to do that anymore.

This is an information war. We need to coordinate our efforts at least as carefully as the enemy does... because they certainly have more resources to devote towards publication than we do, by many orders of magnitude. They control the instruments of discourse almost completely.


Whatever, once its out there, its out there. It's all crashing down. They thought they had the last laugh. IMO, its just getting started. Once you separate the linguistics from the genetics, everything begins to make more sense.


RoyG

The very fact that they can blithely claim associations (causation, not just correlation) between genetics & linguistic theories shows how much power they have over the discourse. Everything they say will be picked up and amplified by Indian leftist echo chambers ad nauseam.

They are the British. We are Mangal Pandey, Nana Phadnavis, Rani Laxmibai & co.

Do we have, in the rawest sense, what it takes to win? Of course. We have the truth.

The problem is that their advantage in controlling the status quo of admissible tactics and overall strategy is overwhelming.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 11 May 2018 09:40

Rudradev wrote:
RoyG wrote:
Whatever, once its out there, its out there. It's all crashing down. They thought they had the last laugh. IMO, its just getting started. Once you separate the linguistics from the genetics, everything begins to make more sense.


RoyG

The very fact that they can blithely claim associations (causation, not just correlation) between genetics & linguistic theories shows how much power they have over the discourse. Everything they say will be picked up and amplified by Indian leftist echo chambers ad nauseam.

They are the British. We are Mangal Pandey, Nana Phadnavis, Rani Laxmibai & co.

Do we have, in the rawest sense, what it takes to win? Of course. We have the truth.

The problem is that their advantage in controlling the status quo of admissible tactics and overall strategy is overwhelming.


This is too big to hide. GDF isn't going to protect it. Besides, keeping it open keeps this stuff fresh and accurate. Let them see it. It's good research. Hopefully, some of the other researchers will see it and they'll reflect deeply on their own findings.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 May 2018 09:54

Rudradev wrote:
shiv wrote:Good news. Vagheesh has blocked me on Twitter. The IE reference is fake but if he removes that steppe-IE ref his paper is destroyed. To that extent I am a mortal enemy of his paper :rotfl:

Good



Sorry to say "I told you so" Shiv. Vagheesh (and more importantly his handlers) have gleaned enough from your tweets to suss out the contours of your line of attack... so now they have blocked you.

Honestly I don't think this thread should be publicly accessible at all. There is too much at stake. The enemy cannot, must not know what we know and are thinking.

I would ask Bradmins to move it to the burqa forum (ex GDF) as the only live thread there. Accessible only to registered members.

There is too much valuable research, expertise, and analysis here (on the part of users like Shiv, Arun Gupta, Nilesh Oak & others) to be compromised by laying it out in full public view.

Almost as important as the research and analysis themselves is the strategy for making it public. We need to be able to discuss and formulate that in private.

No Rudradev. I will never visit the burqa forum. I will continue out in the open. If not on BRF elsewhere and my participation in this topic on BRF will end. I am deeply involved in researching and now increasingly making public the work I am doing. I have been helped a lot by this thread and as far as I am concerned moving this thread to private will simply kill it. IF people know my line of attack so be it. I say this simply because I am on strong grounds in terms of fact and have enough support to help like thinking people to flood information space with alternate idea. We cannot change the minds of liars and those who are suckered by liars. We can blot them out. That has to be the long term aim. Hiding and planning is not part of my game.

Vagheesh blocking me is good news. I think everyone should know that the jackass bulb went on in his mind late when he blocked me. None of my posts were ever intended to change his mind. It was all about the thousands of others who read my posts. That is what caused him trouble. Not the truth value of what I said.

Linguists and Indologists are demonstrable liars. it is not my problem that genetics researchers choose to be blind. Or paid off.

Let me cite what BRF did for Pakistan. I used BRFites links to put a book online in 2007. A decade later no one questions anything that was written and I simply took up what was said on BRF from 1999 onwards. This may take 10-15 years but hiding won't help.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1407
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 11 May 2018 10:08

^^^For what is its worth - it is not one strategy or the other, but to all the above - YES!

“As long as the Lions do not have their storytellers, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter” —-Old African Saying :mrgreen:


Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3129
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 11 May 2018 10:22

Shiv, these guys are a lot more sophisticated than Pakistan or any defenders it has ever had.

But, theek hai. Even as I disagree with your view of publication strategy, I have RTd your tweets on this subject every time I come across them on my TL, and wil continue to do so.

I still do think this is ultimately leading us to 1857 all over again, though.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 May 2018 13:34

I see Western academia on a losing wicket in the long term. I worry about certain aspects of that - for example I admire the advances in aerodynamics, materials and engineering that have come from the west and would hate to see all that slide into the slow degeneration that I see creeping over western academia. Time was when they were confident and well funded and foreigners with skills would be sucked in and paid to study and live in the west. That is all gone now. Funds are short and the is a new business of "selling education" while academia fight for funds. Publishing - which used to be considered the zenith of academic achievement - saw a slow degradation when researchers started pre-releasing their work in the media and were criticized for it. Now even the criticism is gone. They are doing it openly and in addition quasi academic works are appearing without peer review like Vagheesh's paper.

Long long ago I had told my academic friends in India that we must start parallel publications to bypass the caste system of western academia. now they are doing it themselves. And this total idiocy of including 50, 60, 90 authors is the height of ludicrousness. Many of those authors are fakemasters but the papers are too complex and have too many cooks to cross check if someone is a gandu or not. If some researchers have been bought off to remain silent that is good news because such people are double crossing ba$tards and they will wait a while and either ask for more money or spill the beans. This is kaliyuga after all.

I see this as an era where you can stand on a hight tower and masturbate into the wind and let your seed spread far and wide. This is what philologists and Indologists did in the 1800s. It is our turn to do that.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 May 2018 16:30

shiv wrote:I see Western academia on a losing wicket in the long term. I worry about certain aspects of that - for example I admire the advances in aerodynamics, materials and engineering that have come from the west and would hate to see all that slide into the slow degeneration that I see creeping over western academia. Time was when they were confident and well funded and foreigners with skills would be sucked in and paid to study and live in the west. That is all gone now. Funds are short and the is a new business of "selling education" while academia fight for funds. Publishing - which used to be considered the zenith of academic achievement - saw a slow degradation when researchers started pre-releasing their work in the media and were criticized for it. Now even the criticism is gone. They are doing it openly and in addition quasi academic works are appearing without peer review like Vagheesh's paper.


Or it was always thus, and it was a few people in the West swimming in swamp of nonsense - like any other place - that made advances. But we were all dazzled - by the advances, and the general wealth and facilities that accompanied it. A lot of the wrongness has been swallowed up by history. But, e.g., remember, eugenics was a "science" gaining general societal traction until it became politically unacceptable after the Nazis. Or think of Freud and his followers. Karl Marx was an academic, no? contributed a good bit of nonsense, no?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 11 May 2018 19:32

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote:I see Western academia on a losing wicket in the long term. I worry about certain aspects of that - for example I admire the advances in aerodynamics, materials and engineering that have come from the west and would hate to see all that slide into the slow degeneration that I see creeping over western academia. Time was when they were confident and well funded and foreigners with skills would be sucked in and paid to study and live in the west. That is all gone now. Funds are short and the is a new business of "selling education" while academia fight for funds. Publishing - which used to be considered the zenith of academic achievement - saw a slow degradation when researchers started pre-releasing their work in the media and were criticized for it. Now even the criticism is gone. They are doing it openly and in addition quasi academic works are appearing without peer review like Vagheesh's paper.


Or it was always thus, and it was a few people in the West swimming in swamp of nonsense - like any other place - that made advances. But we were all dazzled - by the advances, and the general wealth and facilities that accompanied it. A lot of the wrongness has been swallowed up by history. But, e.g., remember, eugenics was a "science" gaining general societal traction until it became politically unacceptable after the Nazis. Or think of Freud and his followers. Karl Marx was an academic, no? contributed a good bit of nonsense, no?


What will undertaking such projects like this do for Humanity? Paleontology, History, etc. are all useless subjects. They are so busy sucking up funding to dig up the past and create stories out of it. Why do they do this?

To understand this, Balu says the Western culture asks the following question - What is the proper way of going about the world? Uncover the past and retell it to justify yourself today.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 11 May 2018 20:27

^^^ Yes, but it is like nukes, missiles and other military technology. Your civilization will not survive unless you have at least parity in these. We need to play the history game without letting history infect us -- already hard to do because so many political disputes in India today are no longer about present people, but about their ancestors from whom these grievances and injustices have descended.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 11 May 2018 20:41

Academia and publishing has gone haywire.

This blog (check all 6 parts of it) documents the publication 'industry' and its malcontents.
https://mediocrityrulz.wordpress.com/20 ... -racket-1/

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 11 May 2018 21:20

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Yes, but it is like nukes, missiles and other military technology. Your civilization will not survive unless you have at least parity in these. We need to play the history game without letting history infect us -- already hard to do because so many political disputes in India today are no longer about present people, but about their ancestors from whom these grievances and injustices have descended.


Of course, its a necessity now. However, moving forward humanity will have to let it go at some point.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9854
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 12 May 2018 02:17

Has this been paper been linked here?

The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia

Abstract
The Yamnaya expansions from the western steppe into Europe and Asia during the Early Bronze Age (~3000 BCE) are believed to have brought with them Indo-European languages and possibly horse husbandry. We analyze 74 ancient whole-genome sequences from across Inner Asia and Anatolia and show that the Botai people associated with the earliest horse husbandry derived from a hunter-gatherer population deeply diverged from the Yamnaya. Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after but not at the time of Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 12 May 2018 02:30

Vayutuvan wrote:Has this been paper been linked here?

The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia

Abstract
The Yamnaya expansions from the western steppe into Europe and Asia during the Early Bronze Age (~3000 BCE) are believed to have brought with them Indo-European languages and possibly horse husbandry. We analyze 74 ancient whole-genome sequences from across Inner Asia and Anatolia and show that the Botai people associated with the earliest horse husbandry derived from a hunter-gatherer population deeply diverged from the Yamnaya. Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after but not at the time of Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia.


Same bullshit, different packaging.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 12 May 2018 02:56

Earliest evidence of Indus scipt is dated to around ~3300 BC. Now if it is proven that it is Sanskrit than written IE would predate Anatolian script by roughly 800 years.

Everything hinges on decipherment of the script. I have a feeling it will be deciphered especially with more digging happening at other sites.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 707
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 12 May 2018 03:20

shiv wrote:Bunkum Feku language rode horse from steppe theory gets a kick in the teeth
https://twitter.com/IndianInterest/stat ... 8006536192
We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there." In other words, Reich et al.'s claim that Indo-European languages came into India via "migration" from the Steppe is incorrect.
https://t.co/A7PSmzjyIa
Image

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... n-science/



There seems to be a disconnect here. The original paper says something else, but the reporter writing in Science (today's print issue) draws a somewhat different conclusion. Quotes Priya Moorjani again though not sure if the conclusion is hers. Still, I don't know how language and genetics are mixed up in this paper. Bolded for emphasis by me.

This is the conclusion (last paragraph of the discussion section) in the original Willerslev paper:

"Thus, while the Steppe Hypothesis, in the light of ancient genomics, has so far successfully explained the origin and dispersal of IE languages and culture in Europe, we find that several elements must be reinterpreted to account for Asia. First, we show that the earliest unambiguous example of horse herding emerged amongst hunter-gatherers, who had no significant genetic interaction with western steppe herders. Second, we demostrate that the Anatolian IE language branch, including Hittite, did not derive from a substantial steppe migration into Anatolia. And third, we conclude that Early Bronze Age steppe pastoralists did not migrate into South Asia but that genetic evidence fits better with the Indo Iranian IE languages being brought to the region by descendants of Late Bronze Age steppe pastoralists."

Don't know how they can state the underlined part so definitively.

And this from today's Science magazine, in the 'news' section:

ANCIENT DNA
Finding the first horse tamers
Genes suggest that Central Asian hunter-gatherers, not famed Yamnaya herders, first domesticated horses
By Michael Price

Taming horses opened a new world, allowing prehistoric people to travel farther and faster than ever before, and revolutionizing military strategy. But who first domesticated horses— and the genetic and cultural impact of the early riders—has long been a puzzle.
The “steppe hypothesis” suggested that Bronze Age pastoralists known as the Yam- naya, or their close relatives, first domesti- cated the horse. Aided by its fleet transport, they migrated out from the Eurasian steppe and spread their genes, as well as precursors of today’s Indo-European languages, across much of Eurasia. But a new study of ancient genomes, published online in Science this week, suggests that the Yamnaya’s effect on Asia was limited, and that another culture domesticated the horse first. “This is a really exciting paper,” says Priya Moorjani, a genet- icist at the University of California, Berkeley.
The first signs of horse domestication— pottery containing traces of mares’ milk and horse teeth with telltale wear from a riding bit—come from Botai hunter-gatherers, who lived in modern Kazakhstan from about 3700 B.C.E. to 3100 B.C.E. Yet some research- ers thought the Botai were unlikely to have invented horse husbandry because they lin- gered as hunter-gatherers long after their neighbors had adopted farming and herding. These researchers assumed the Botai learned to handle horses from nearby cultures on the steppe, perhaps even the Yamnaya, who were already herding sheep and goats.

Genetic data suggest the Yamnaya mi- grated both east and west during the Bronze Age, and mixed with locals. Some research- ers hypothesize that they also spread early branches of a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, which later diversified into today’s many Indo-European languages, including English, Italian, Hindi, Russian, and Persian.
To explore the Yamnaya’s legacy in Asia, a team led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen and the University of Cam- bridge in the United Kingdom sequenced the whole genomes of 74 ancient Eurasians, most of whom lived between 3500 B.C.E. and 1500 B.C.E. The researchers devised a rough family tree and timeline for these samples and those from later civilizations and modern people.
The team found no Yamnaya DNA in the three Botai individuals, suggesting the two groups hadn’t mixed. That implies the Botai domesticated horses on their own, says Will- erslev, first hunting the animals, then man- aging herds for food, and finally using them for other purposes. “It’s an extremely impor- tant achievement from a group of people we all think of as being pretty simple,” he says.
The new work fits with the archaeologi- cal evidence and a recent study of DNA from ancient horses themselves (Science, 6 April, p. 111), says zooarchaeologist Sandra Olsen at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, a co-author on that study. That work showed that Botai horses were not related to modern horses, hinting at separate domestications by the Botai and other steppe dwellers.
The Yamnaya used horses to migrate far and wide. Yet Willerslev’s team found little Yamnaya DNA in Central and South Asia. They saw no trace of it in ancient people from Anatolia in modern Turkey, where Hittite, an early branch of PIE, was likely spoken. That suggests Hittite likely didn’t evolve from a language brought by the Yamnaya. “What we see does not support a classical way of look- ing at the steppe hypothesis,” Willerslev says.
He argues for a more nuanced history in which steppe pastoralists weren’t the original horse-whisperers or first introducers of PIE to Anatolia. But by seeping into Europe and Asia in multiple migrations, he says, they still rode their steeds to a big role in prehistory.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9854
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 12 May 2018 05:13

shiv wrote:
Rudradev wrote: ... Honestly I don't think this thread should be publicly accessible at all. There is too much at stake. The enemy cannot, must not know what we know and are thinking.
...
There is too much valuable research, expertise, and analysis here (on the part of users like Shiv, Arun Gupta, Nilesh Oak & others) to be compromised by laying it out in full public view.


No Rudradev. I will never visit the burqa forum. I will continue out in the open.


As Pulikeshi says, yes to both. We all know what happened with RISA-L after RISA-lila posts were made on now defunct online magazine. The archives used to be public read-only but after RISA lila shone light on their incestous in-breeding, it has gone dark.

As Rajiv Malhotra says, we have too few people who want to spend time in acquiring even a passing knowledge of what is at stake leave alone the intellectual heft to acquire the requisite intellectual and scholarly background leave alone formulate a hypothesis in a fashion that is science in the popperian sense. This is not to say that RISA and historical linguistics people are all very scientific either. Bu they do have the levers on the 'scholarly' journals as they sit on the editorial boards of these journals.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 May 2018 06:13

Primus wrote: And third, we conclude that Early Bronze Age steppe pastoralists did not migrate into South Asia but that genetic evidence fits better with the Indo Iranian IE languages being brought to the region by descendants of Late Bronze Age steppe pastoralists."

Don't know how they can state the underlined part so definitively.

You do know. Only we guys are too polite to say it. We don't want to blurt out the truth. The steppe theory made up by linguists is a concoction. A lie.

Let me quote my own Tweet speaking about this exact same sentence
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/994757959233110016
This paper while throwing a fresh perspective still suffers from the assumption that languages came from steppe - which is nonsense. That theory was totally cooked up by linguists and has now passed into the realms of "academic fact" on the grounds of "Our elders told us so"


Anyone who goes through all those old linguistics refs (as I have done) - Darmetester, Boyce, Thieme, Haug, MacDonell, Muller, Jackson, Bloomfield, Keith et all will know how these guys incestuously agreed to make up the story.

People like Muller and Haug - in their original passages have been almost apologetic when they have figured out that they bend to bend reality about the antiquity of Sanskrit but they have gone ahead and done that - then handing the baton to the likes of Witzel who simply and cockily brushes off all doubts of blackies. But its all there. No one is looking at is. Can't blame anyone. Each book by each of those worthies I have named is >300 pages. But word searches are possible

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9290
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 12 May 2018 06:31

shiv wrote:I see this as an era where you can stand on a high tower and ******* into the wind and let your (fa*t)s spread far and wide. This is what philologists and Indologists did in the 1800s. It is our turn to do that.


Speaking of this fine line of thinking: Got this from Evil 6th coujin:

See WAVES2018 website below, with list of papers and all. Aljo bls read article by "team". We need 10 papers (each is about 4K to 5K words or about 10-12 pages of Word). Topics here are mostly appropriate. Can you guys esp. US-based ones pls contribute papers and show up at Dallas Aug. 2-5? Website is http://www.globindian.com/WAVES2018/ Maybe a great opportunity for a BR meet as well.


Particularly, if some of the entities here could pls email 2018WAVES@gmail.com they could get the ball rolling and stand on it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 May 2018 06:49

We Indians are too science heavy and that is beginning to show. Our rishis are science people and we ignore the effect that the humanities have had on western science. We do this at out own peril.

There is a great sentence that I can take from csaurabh's link above:
https://mediocrityrulz.wordpress.com/20 ... -racket-1/
Unnecessary, obvious, or “epsilon-delta” papers — ones with problems that did not need to be studied in the first place, or with results that could have deduced without any of the analysis presented in the paper, or where the problem has been changed a little (epsilon) to get a result that has changed by a little (delta); in short papers that are not wrong, but of no consequence and adding no value whatsoever.


Things like "epsilon delta" fire us up because it is a language we speak. But we get befuddled by what linguists write - but it is just mumbo-jumbo incantations. It is nonsense. These guys have bent over backwards to piss and shit in the pool of languages they call Indo-European to make the colour and smell suitable for themselves. In my PIE or LIE article I said what linguists did not do

A brief examination of all the things that linguists could have done if they used scientific method rather than making up stuff as they went along is astounding. In fact to be perfectly honest - if you define 300 languages as IE you have to examine every single one of them in detail in their original geographic and cultural setting to see why that may not be the original source of IE languages. If Greece. Latin and Sanskrit are the oldest languages, what has been done to check if these are not the original sources. in science you cannot willy-nilly pin down one assumption and say '"This is fact". This is exactly what linguists have done. This is now getting quoted in genetics papers and we are all getting our knickers on a huge twist without being convinced of the linguistic proof available to us in Indian texts.

I sometimes marvel at the level of intellectual cooliedom we Indians show - because it goes beyond simply lack of reading of old fake material.

A lot of linguistics references simply say that the "textual evidence" says blah blah blah. We believe that simply because white man says it. In general we do not want to believe contrary textual evidence in front of our noses that say the opposite as well as the fact that white man is lying. I use terms like "white man" because race is the fundamental basis for what is being passed of as science.

The other thing that linguists have done is a masterpiece of gaandmasti. The controversies are all there to be read - from Darmetester and Witzel and others. When these philologists get an old text - especially an oral one like Veda or Zend Avesta - they use faulty translations (or even if they have genuine translations from native scholars), and they if they don't like what the scholars say they say "Oh this is tradition, we should rather depend on the text". If they don't like the text they say "The tradition says this"

This switching between what is convenient is completely opaque to us because we have accepted white man's science as our Veda and his word as our Veda vakya.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

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

Postby Suresh S » 12 May 2018 08:02

I gave very similar arguments to my relatives and friends with lot of emotions over the years . They are saying I have become a Hindu fundamentalist. If another person have come to the exact same conclusions as me than either I am right or both me and shiv are mad and "Hindu fundamentalists". Make your own judgement.By the way I do like that very appropriate word intellectual coolidom , a very common disease among indians especially "educated ones".

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 May 2018 08:10

Suresh S wrote:I gave very similar arguments to my relatives and friends with lot of emotions . They are saying I have become a Hindu fundamentalist. If another person have come to the exact same conclusions as me than either I am right or both me and shiv are mad and "Hindu fundamentalists". make your own judgement.

There are several interesting things going on in these reactions.

One is cognitive dissonance - disbelief of stuff that goes contrary to what has been drilled into one's head. That is mental cooliedom - a normal state of mind for a large number of Indians. Did you see this from a Parsi source:
https://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroa ... estern.htm
Are the Aryans a Racial or National Group?

When western philologists published their conclusions about the Aryans of the Avesta and Rig Veda (the earliest Hindu scriptures), together with their racial constructs, they fed a speculative frenzy about the Aryan peoples - much of it based on the desire of some Europeans to claim superiority over non-Europeans who were thus worthy of colonization and subjugation, or by Christians to claim racial separation from the Jews and other Semites.

Racialization

The racialization of the term Aryans, that is defining the word to mean a "race" of people and more specifically the "race" of so-called white-skinned people, otherwise erroneously known as Caucasians, has its roots in a construct by German anthropologist Christoph Meiners as outlined in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785). The concept of "race" in his context does not just mean ethnicity or physical characteristics, but defines mental abilities, moral characteristics and superiority over other human beings. Meiners racialized human beings and then assigned them into races: Caucasians of whom the most racially pure were the "venerated... ancient Germans" and "Mongolians" who consisted of everyone else. He considered some Europeans to be impure "dirty whites". Meiners excluded Jews from the Caucasian race and ascribed to them instead a "permanently degenerate nature". Meiners claimed that Blacks (Negroes) felt less pain and lacked emotions since they had thick nerves; they had "no human (and) barely any animal feeling. In his book, he relates a story where a Black man, half way through the burning alive asked to smoke a pipe and smoked it like nothing was happening while he continued to burn. Blacks also had perverted sex drives according to Meiners while Whites had it just right.

In his 1853 Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, French aristocrat Arthur de Gobineau (1816-82) further postulated that the "White" race represented a superior branch of humanity and that "Black", "White", and "Yellow" skins were natural barriers between the "races", a position he claimed was supported by the Bible. He believed that "race-mixing" violates those natural barriers and leads to chaos.

The racialization of people is the bedrock of racism.

Racialization, Philology & Max Müller

The racist speculations of Meiners and Gobineau were further justified by the so-called "science" some saw in the theories of philologists and linguists such as Max Müller (see note below*) - a theory that if languages were remotely connected by the presence of some words that are similar, then the people must have been connected "racially" in the distant past. A tool that had some credibility in establishing a connection between the peoples of the Avesta and Rig Veda was stretched to the limits of incredulity. The Aryans of the Vedas and the Avesta provided these individuals with a convenient group with whom to claim a racial connection leading to the racialization of the term "Aryans". Meiners' so-called Caucasians now had an additional racialized label, Aryans.

Caucasians & Aryans

Caucasians by definition have their origins in the Caucasus mountain region just west of the Southern Caspian Sea, a handy launching point for a mythical migration of Aryans to Europe. Essential to the maintenance of this construct was the elaborate justification that the Aryans of the Avesta and Vedas also originated in the Caucasus Mountains. Central Asia did not appear to suit their purpose. Some who fancied this notion but who were not satisfied that the Aryans had migrated to Europe from Asia, claimed that the Aryans were native to Germany and that one branch had migrated the other way, that is, from Europe to Asia.

It is quite amazing how an entirely bogus concept based on a fallacy - that blue-eyed, blond haired Europeans have their origin in the Caucasus mountain region - is still currently used as a demographic and racial term, Caucasians (as is the use of the term "Indians" for aboriginal North Americans).


Müller wrote a laudatory preface to a book by French missionary Abbe Dubois (1765-1848), who wrote, "...to make a new race of the Hindus, one would have to undermine the very foundations of their civilization, religion and polity, and by turning them into atheists and barbarians. Having accomplished this terrible upheaval, we might then perhaps offer ourselves to them as lawgivers and religious teachers." In his preface to Dubois' book, Müller extols the author as being "remarkably free from theological prejudice".

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3129
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 12 May 2018 10:52

shiv wrote:
Primus wrote: And third, we conclude that Early Bronze Age steppe pastoralists did not migrate into South Asia but that genetic evidence fits better with the Indo Iranian IE languages being brought to the region by descendants of Late Bronze Age steppe pastoralists."

Don't know how they can state the underlined part so definitively.

You do know. Only we guys are too polite to say it. We don't want to blurt out the truth. The steppe theory made up by linguists is a concoction. A lie.



It's like the story of the kid who mugged up an English essay about "cow". On the exam paper he was asked to write an essay on the importance of "tree". So he wrote: "A cow is tied to the tree"... and then regurgitated the "cow" essay he memorized.

What the paper explodes is the Yamnaya theory held dear by many "Eurogenes" frauds and their AIT compatriots. According to this theory the Yamnaya culture (of the Russo-Ukrainian Steppe) evolved "PIE" and spread it both West to Europe and South/East as far as India.

The Yamnaya may well have spread genes and/or language to Europe (ca. 3000 BCE). But what this paper shows is that there was no Yamnaya (or any other Steppe) genetic input into Anatolia (Turkey) even as late as the Bronze Age (when Anatolians were clearly speaking IE). Meaning, Yamnayas or other Steppe people never brought any language or genetic signature even as far South or East as Anatolia... let slone Iran or India.

In spite of this the authors of this paper MUST put in an obligatory tagline that "genetic evidence" FITS better with IE languages being brought to India by Steppe people in the late Bronze Age. This is the Cow tied to the Tree, included only so that the authors will "pass" peer-review.

What they are basically saying is equivalent to "burqas fit every woman of any size, and burqas are prescribed by the religion of Islam, therefore it is clear that Islam is a truly Universal Religion."

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 12 May 2018 12:26

This is link to a video of Dr Sampadananda Mishra's Q&A session. He talks about a language before Sanskrit, little bit of 'philology' and the secrets of Sanskrit, the PIE Chefs will not be able to understand the secret recipe forever.

31,000 root words

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 12 May 2018 13:28


Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 12 May 2018 16:32

The intentional fraud that geneticists choose to believe and propagate is this

Because Steppe people invaded Europe, they must have invaded India too


As Koenraad Elst says, there is plenty of evidence for a Steppe invasion into Europe: abrupt archaeological changes, signs of violence etc. But there is zilch evidence for invasion or even a large scale migration into India. All you see is continuity. This is why I am highly skeptical of the statement that modern Indians have Steppe_MLBA genes. If such a large population in IVC went through a complete Steppe DNA influx so much so that most Indians have this DNA today, wouldn't it leave other evidences behind?

We need to comb through the primary material, including how Steppe_MLBA and EMBA are arrived at.
Last edited by Prem Kumar on 12 May 2018 16:57, edited 2 times in total.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 12 May 2018 16:54

This obsession with Steppes is pathetic. In all probability, their contribution to the world's culture was limited. I propose that we call them the Bronze Age Arabs, who took Indian language/culture/religion to the West. Just like how the later day Arabs transmitted algebra. And how the even later day Jesuits transmitted Kerala school Infinite Series to Newton/Liebnitz.

This Steppe obsession + theory-making on flimsy grounds (by drowning you in sheer volume of papers) is a Western specialty. They did that with Christianity. 2000 years of "scholarship", divinity schools, PhDs, philosophies etc were created to eulogize a non-existent person who was supposedly crucified.

India should produce its own works. We should talk about NorthEast Indian DNA, Himalayan DNA, Western hunter gatherers from Narmada region, South Central tribes etc. A pathetic continent like Europe is being given so much importance with EHG, CHG, WHG, pastoralist blah blah blah.

Its like this: they talk about tiny municipalities like Belgium having its own culture. Yet Africa is portrayed as if its just one small village. Similarly, India becomes "South Asia". India & Africa have the highest biodiversity, DNA diversity, language diversity, cultural/religious diversity and yet we use the models of racist White people.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 707
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 12 May 2018 17:29

Suresh S wrote:I gave very similar arguments to my relatives and friends with lot of emotions over the years . They are saying I have become a Hindu fundamentalist. If another person have come to the exact same conclusions as me than either I am right or both me and shiv are mad and "Hindu fundamentalists". Make your own judgement.By the way I do like that very appropriate word intellectual coolidom , a very common disease among indians especially "educated ones".


Yup, my family has been calling me that for years. I tell them if you think so, then I sure as hell am very proud to be a Hindu Fundamentalist! So there!

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 707
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

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

Postby Primus » 12 May 2018 17:44

Rudradev wrote:
shiv wrote:You do know. Only we guys are too polite to say it. We don't want to blurt out the truth. The steppe theory made up by linguists is a concoction. A lie.



..................

In spite of this the authors of this paper MUST put in an obligatory tagline that "genetic evidence" FITS better with IE languages being brought to India by Steppe people in the late Bronze Age. This is the Cow tied to the Tree, included only so that the authors will "pass" peer-review.


And that is exactly what the reporter writes in Science. I do hope the motivations of the authors are truly scientific.

I used to do some 'research' myself in a different life, even managed to publish some of it. Things were much simpler then, limited computing power and no internet. The most important papers in my field had easy to understand methodology, simple data and yet stunning conclusions that somehow did resonate with what we were seeing in our daily practice. Intuitively, you knew the authors indeed had it right, it felt right and many times you could test it yourself.

Now you need a PhD to be able to read a paper, there is a mountain of complicated data in fancy graphs and spreadsheets, with a million references. In my time you had to go to a local library to look up references to be able to quote in your study, now Google makes a 'scientist' out of anyone who cares to spend a few minutes online.

Not saying it is all bad, but it sure makes it easy for people to spew a lot of nonsense disguised as facts and hidden in voluminous data and then draw erroneous conclusions from it - as long as you have a 'mentor' or two to pat your back and nod in agreement. It is a cabal of like-minded people who are only too happy to corroborate each other's work because they are all pushing the same falsehoods as part of a larger agenda.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 May 2018 19:25

http://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-my ... -indology/

Consider the following:

This research paper demonstrates the absence of any significant outside genetic influence in India for the past 10,000 – 15,000 years [4].
This research paper excludes any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including India, at least since the mid-Holocene period (7,000 to 5,000 years ago) [5].

This research paper rejects the possibility of an Aryan invasion/migration and concludes that Indian populations are genetically unique and harbor the second highest genetic diversity after Africans [6].

[4] Sengupta S. et al. Polarity and temporality of high-resolution Y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of Central Asian pastoralists. Am J Hum Genet. 2006;78:202–21.

[5] Underhill P. A. et al. Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18:479–84. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.194.

This research paper demonstrates that the R1a1* haplogroup, which is found throughout Eurasia, originated in India [7].

This more recent study published in 2015 confirms and refines the results of [7], demonstrating that the oldest examples of the haplogroup R1a are found in the Indian subcontinent and are approximately 15,450 years old [8].

[7] Sharma S. et al. The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system. Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47–55; doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2

[8] Lucotte G. (2015) The Major Y-Chromosome Haplotype XI – Haplogroup R1a in Eurasia. Hereditary Genet 4:150. doi: 10.4172/2161-1041.1000150



The obvious retort is that those papers are invalidated by newer findings, that is the way science works, etc. etc.

But it raises the question - what precisely in the new findings overthrows these older ones, and with what significance?

That is, one of the following must be true for the Vagheesh et. al. paper to be true:
1. The data/observations on which the older papers are based are faulty, incomplete, etc. Using the same model, but with the new data leads to different results.

2. The method of inference in the older papers is faulty. Applying the newer method of inference makes the data in the older papers consistent with the new findings.

3. Lots of shades of nuance between the extremes 1. and 2. above., etc., etc.

So what is the case here?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 May 2018 19:45

FYI, [8] the Lucotte paper is not cited by any other scientific paper per Google Scholar.
The paper is available online here:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... 000150.pdf

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 May 2018 19:58

A_Gupta wrote:http://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/

The obvious retort is that those papers are invalidated by newer findings, that is the way science works, etc. etc.

So what is the case here?

The case is highlighted in red. That is most definitely not the way science works. Science is not like Mohammad came after Jesus so he is the latest and must be followed. The findings of the earlier paper must be overturned in some way - or at least other papers that do just that must be quoted. But Primus gets it just right when he says:

to be able to read a paper, there is a mountain of complicated data in fancy graphs and spreadsheets, with a million references. In my time you had to go to a local library to look up references to be able to quote in your study,


In fact a lot of us and that includes Primus and me in an earlier life had to go through this publishing rigmarole. Not just that, part of my own PG training included reviews and critiques of papers in a weekly "Journal Club" for 3 years. No wonder no one wants to peer review a paper like the one Vagheesh has put up. I bet even the authors have not checked out all the refs and have simply picked "most cited" papers. That in fact makes it easy for people like me and Rudradev and Arun to take the trouble to check cross refs and pick holes. And guess what - the minute your arguments start causing taqleef - you are shut out. And that is actually good. No one likes to lose an argument and a good rebuttal or put down is invariably retained so the rebutter can bask in his victory. The blocking comes on flimsy grounds. It means we are on the right track and that they have no answer for the criticisms but want the paper to go through as is. And it will.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 12 May 2018 21:23

^^^ Well, that is precisely the question I'm asking - for Vagheesh et. al. to be right, the papers cited above must be wrong in some way, in which case just precisely how and where did they go wrong?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 12 May 2018 22:25

In the few weeks that he was in communication with me all that Vagheesh said was that there are steppe genes in India and that supports language spread. He is not interested in anything else. Mohammad is the Prophet and Allah is god and balls to what anyone else says. Amazing full circle science has gone from religion.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 13 May 2018 00:31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Brv2FaOluU

Not sure if I've posted this here before: Dean Brown (Theoretical Physicist, Sanskritist and translator of The Upanishads) and the host Jeffrey Mishlove. The host tries to bring in PIE, but Brown never mentions it - just goes straight on to credit India for Sanskrit.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 13 May 2018 07:51

Shiv,
WHY SIR WILLIAM JONES GOT IT ALL WRONG, OR JONES’ ROLE IN HOW TO ESTABLISH LANGUAGE FAMILIES
http://ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/ASJU/artic ... /4384/4329

A more accurate take on the history of linguistics.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 May 2018 11:29

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv,
WHY SIR WILLIAM JONES GOT IT ALL WRONG, OR JONES’ ROLE IN HOW TO ESTABLISH LANGUAGE FAMILIES
http://ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/ASJU/artic ... /4384/4329

A more accurate take on the history of linguistics.

Thanks Arun. I have seen this one earlier

One of the reasons why I think linguistics has historically been such a useless and time-wasting pursuit is that they go beyond cognates into grammatical forms and unprovable theories of sound change and rate of change. This is a bit like saying that cockroaches and humans are similar because of broad structural similarities - head, brain in head, digestive system etc.

A relationship of cockroaches to humans while academically valid is of no more use to anyone one earth than the claim that Hindi and Irish are related. Linguists have been so desperate to find a common ancestor that they have gone apeshit in detecting IE languages - some 300 of them

It would be far better to apply some scientific method in picking groups of languages with great similarity and similar antiquity and comparing them rather than detecting hundreds of languages - some with a very tenuous link which may actually have inputs from many other unknown languages other than a mother of all IE

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 13 May 2018 19:59


A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 16 May 2018 16:27

For future reference.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED043872

The Influence of Sanskrit on the Japanese Sound Systems.
Buck, James H.
The Japanese syllabary of today would probably not exist in its present arrangement had it not been for Sanskrit studies in Japan. Scholars of ancient Japan extracted from the Devanagari those sounds which corresponded to sounds in Japanese and arranged the Japanese syllabary in the devanagari order. First appearing in a document dated 1204, this arrangement has been fixed since the 17th century. This arrangement was most convenient for the study of Sanskrit and was later applied by scholars of the history of the Japanese language. It was a convenient means to order information and perhaps, even, its early use has a parallel in the earliest English dictionaries which were arranged according to our present alphabet, but whose major purpose was the study of a foreign language. For the English, it was Latin; for the Japanese, it was Sanskrit. (Author/AMM)

Note: Presented at the Southeastern Conference on Linguistics, University of North Carolina, April 17-18, 1970

----
Can this be a mechanism for the spread of Sanskrit/IE in the ancient world? No invasions, no migrations, no "one culture dominating the other". Just the spread of knowledge.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 16 May 2018 16:54

This was written w.r.t. a debate in climate science, but are relevant here for all the genetics papers:
First off, what definitions are being used here. This committee has decided that formally:

  • Reproducibility is the ability to test a result using independent methods and alternate choices in data processing. This is akin to a different laboratory testing an experimental result or a different climate model showing the same phenomena etc.
  • Replicability is the ability to check and rerun the analysis and get the same answer.


If we have the expertise, we should check replicability and reproducibility of the various genetics papers, including Vagheesh et. al. and also the papers that say no genetically significant influx into India in the Holocene, etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 16 May 2018 22:25

A_Gupta wrote:
  • Reproducibility is the ability to test a result using independent methods and alternate choices in data processing. This is akin to a different laboratory testing an experimental result or a different climate model showing the same phenomena etc.
  • Replicability is the ability to check and rerun the analysis and get the same answer.

This is fundamental to ALL science. For example - a person has the flu and eats chalk and gets better and says "Chalk works'.

Chalk must be tested in 100 patients with flu and should work consistently and work better than say water alone. Reproducibility and replicability.

But when people who call themselves scientists like Vagheesh publish a non peer reviewed paper and publicize it and discuss on Disqus and Twitter they know damn well that they can talk shit because the vast majority of people are not doing science. This has become a common thing in the west with even books being written for the lay public passing off shit as truth. David Anthony's "Horse Wheel and Language" is one such book an David Reich's book (name?) is another. Quick fame by a name of authority, some money earned on the side, and the ability to make shit into truth by spraying your seed all over the public domain.

This is what I meant when I said that we need to use that model. Stand on whatever post/pedestal/tower you get and jerk off and let your seed spread far and wide. This is the way of science now.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dumal and 27 guests