PDA

View Full Version : Is Aryan Invasion True?



socialdarwinist
21 June 2008, 01:10 AM
Hi Friends, :)

I'd like to explore this controversial matter, and see if this is in line with traditional Hindu thinking.

First of all, I am NOT a novice to this theory, I've read the views presented by both parties. AIT opponents say the theory was invented by British to belittle India. Frankly, I find this hard to believe, the mighty British Empire spending so much effort to belittle any nation. Second, it seems to be more sentimental than rational, when the opponents make such claims.

On the other hand, AIT proponents have some hard evidence such as:

Skin Color: North Indians are fair, compared to South Indians.

Brahmins are generally fair, but even otherwise, they have distinct Caucasian features, which are missing in non-Brahmins, even the fair-skinned non-brahmins.

Patterns in history: In the last thousand years or so, India has been a prey to invasion by practically all foreign forces. So isn't it logical to conclude that the same India has been invaded by the Aryans from Europe at an earlier date?

Religion: Shaivism is popular in South, and Vaishnavism in the North.

Literature: Veda is quite clear that fair-skinned Aryans fought dark Dravidians. There's no way around it, it's not possible to say everything is an allegory. Moreover, the skin color factor is still present in India (fair north/dark south), and this corroborates the vedic theory.

Present: Most inventions, science, arts, literature etc. have come from the Caucasian race. So it's easy for an AIT proponent to conclude that this must've been the case in ancient India as well.

There's much more, but we'll focus on this for the time being. Please remember that these are NOT my personal views, but a general observation on why AIT appears so appealing to most people. It's got powerful arguments in its favor.

So my question is, How do traditional Hindus view this? Do they consider themselves to be Aryans, or if they oppose this theory, why? Do they have hard evidence for this? I am very much interested to know from the Hindus, because so far, I've only heard from the AIT proponents.:(

Baobobtree
21 June 2008, 12:41 PM
Religion: Shaivism is popular in South, and Vaishnavism in the North. That's probably one of the most ridiculous claims I hear people make. Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, are all Shaiva/Shakti majority, yet they are located in the Northern most parts of India. Likewise, the majority of Hindus in Punjab and Kashmir are also Shaivas (though now, Hindus themselves are minorities in these states). And even though they might not be Vaishnava majority, many South Indian states have large populations of Vaishnavas.


Skin Color: North Indians are fair, compared to South Indians. Because you know, the warmer climate in the South wouldn't effect this at all:rolleyes:


Brahmins are generally fair, but even otherwise, they have distinct Caucasian features, which are missing in non-Brahmins, even the fair-skinned non-brahmins.
Care to give any evidence of this?


Patterns in history: In the last thousand years or so, India has been a prey to invasion by practically all foreign forces. So isn't it logical to conclude that the same India has been invaded by the Aryans from Europe at an earlier date?
Why is this logical?



Literature: Veda is quite clear that fair-skinned Aryans fought dark Dravidians. There's no way around it, it's not possible to say everything is an allegory. Moreover, the skin color factor is still present in India (fair north/dark south), and this corroborates the vedic theory. Where in the Vedas is this stated?


Most inventions, science, arts, literature etc. have come from the Caucasian race. So it's easy for an AIT proponent to conclude that this must've been the case in ancient India as well.
Then this proponent, is basing his conclusion upon a racist way of thinking. Caucasians are not inherently more intelligent then any other race.

indianx
21 June 2008, 10:47 PM
First of all, I am NOT a novice to this theory, I've read the views presented by both parties. AIT opponents say the theory was invented by British to belittle India.That's not correct. It might be a fringe view among nationalists, but it's not the general view held among people who contend AIT to be inaccurate. A more accurate generalization would be to say that most AIT opponents belive AIT to be a part of Orientalist academia.


Skin Color: North Indians are fair, compared to South Indians. That's an extremely simplistic and inaccurate depiction. But, as Baobobtree has already said, the fact that it snows in Kashmir and in Chennai, the weather consistently goes above 100 degrees probably doesn't have anything to do with any variation in skin colour, right?

TatTvamAsi
21 June 2008, 10:55 PM
Hi Friends, :)
First of all, I am NOT a novice to this theory

First, you ARE a novice to this theory, as you have made up your mind based on FALSE and propagandist information.



Skin Color: North Indians are fair, compared to South Indians.

And that's why most of the top actresses in "bollywood" in the last 50 years have been South Indian! :rolleyes:

There are fair-skinned people everywhere, North & South. If you haven't travelled to India, you should to see for yourself.



Brahmins are generally fair, but even otherwise, they have distinct Caucasian features, which are missing in non-Brahmins, even the fair-skinned non-brahmins.

News flash: there are THREE distinct races in the world; negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid. That makes ALL Indians Caucasoid. Color of skin has nothing to do with actual features. Yes, Brahmins are generally lighter-skinned than their sUdra counterparts but that is mainly because Brahmins are not in the fields doing back-breaking work in the Indian summer. They're indoors doing prayers etc.



Patterns in history: In the last thousand years or so, India has been a prey to invasion by practically all foreign forces. So isn't it logical to conclude that the same India has been invaded by the Aryans from Europe at an earlier date?

First, there are NO Aryans in Europe; never was, never will be. Europeans and all non-Hindus are MLECCHAS (untouchables!!). Secondly, Aryans who have been driven out of India, such as Iranians are originally Vedic people who settled in the areas that are now known as Afghanistan, Iran etc.



Religion: Shaivism is popular in South, and Vaishnavism in the North.


Where the hell did you get that from? Ever heard of Ramanuja, Madhva, or Shankara? ALL ARE SOUTH INDIAN!!



Literature: Veda is quite clear that fair-skinned Aryans fought dark Dravidians. There's no way around it, it's not possible to say everything is an allegory. Moreover, the skin color factor is still present in India (fair north/dark south), and this corroborates the vedic theory.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Dasyus in the Rg Veda are not Dravidians! They are the 'fallen-Aryas' or the clans that were once part of Aryavarta (INDIA) but were driven out. Why is skin-color so important to you? Are you white? Are you that desperate to feel good about yourself?



Present: Most inventions, science, arts, literature etc. have come from the Caucasian race. So it's easy for an AIT proponent to conclude that this must've been the case in ancient India as well.


This is the last straw. Just STFU. Really. Hindus have given the world mathematics (numeral system, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, decimal system etc.), philosophy (Vedanta), LANGUAGE (Sanskrit) & consequently literature (Vedas, Upanishads, etc.), and many other things. The westerners promptly robbed other countries and races and made themselves appear rich in the 19th & 20th centuries. India was the RICHEST COUNTRY (materially as well!) until 1850. This is after 1100 years of pillaging by barbarians (christians & muslims). And many practical inventions (like engineers who use physical principles) have been made by the Chinese, Sumerians, & Arabs.



There's much more...

Indeed. FOR YOU TO LEARN THAT IS.




Do they consider themselves to be Aryans, or if they oppose this theory, why? Do they have hard evidence for this? I am very much interested to know from the Hindus, because so far, I've only heard from the AIT proponents.:(

Don't fall for the Hitler propaganda so easily. Just think of it this way:

You invade a country thinking it is filled with barbarians and uncivilized savages but instead you find sources, texts, evidence of a incredibly advanced society philosophically, scientifically, and traditionally. Your first thought would be, "Wait, these curry munchers couldn't have come up with this stuff! They're too DARK to figure out stuff like this. All they know is to make curry and dance around trees (Bollywood). Of course, the apparent squalor of the place is great evidence for this. There has to be a mistake! I thump the bible at least 5 times a day and the earth is only 6000 years old! So, this civilization cannot be older than 1500 BCE. This great treasure-trove of philosophical and scientific material must have been brought from elsewhere as these savages are too dim to have figured it out for themselves! But who? Oh yes! US, the GREAT WHITE MAN! Let's re-write these curry munchers' history so that it shows the superiority of the WHITE MAN & christianity over these rat & snake worshipping savages! Let us jack the Swastika & the word Arya to represent the White race."

To get to the point, Hindus don't buy into this farce called the AIT because there is simply NO PROOF for it and in fact, the proof of something in reverse is evident; information going OUT OF INDIA! Ancient India included parts of present-day Afghanistan, Iran, Burma, Nepal, Tibet, etc. So when there were wars and famines which caused migration of the native populace, it was all WITHIN INDIA!

And, to suggest that the Vedas came from outside India is nothing but blasphemy! If these fair-skinned Aryans brought the Vedas to India, the Aryans that went to Europe and Iran must have been some dim-witted mutts. As there is no continuity of civilization there. Sanatana Dharma has always been native to India. End of story.

White people seem to have to incessantly try to "prove" that other races have not contributed to civilization or that somehow there are ultimately inferior. Pretty sad and lame. As HINDUS are the wealthiest and most educated minority in the US!!

If I seemed offensive in my post, well, it's because it is highly irksome to read the same nonsense of the AIT over and over again. It has been disproven thoroughly!

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 12:11 AM
First of all, I am Indian. I want to make this clear, so people won't get the wrong idea that I am white, and therefore trying to take sides with AIT proponents. Despite being Indian, I want to be objective about this. Hope it's clear to one and all.

Second, thank you very much for your replies, all of you.:) I feel like people have been offended by my queries, so I'll keep my posts to a minimum. I don't want to cause pain to anyone.



And that's why most of the top actresses in "bollywood" in the last 50 years have been South Indian! :rolleyes:

Exceptions don't make a rule. Just because some South Indian actors are light-skinned, it doesn't change the fact that SIs are predominantly dark-skinned. We're considering the whole race, just not celebrities. Besides, these light-skinned people from South could be Brahmins, in all likelihood. Either way, the point is, exceptions are just that, exceptions, and cannot be considered as evidence.


There are fair-skinned people everywhere, North & South. If you haven't travelled to India, you should to see for yourself.I am sorry, but I don't think you're being entirely honest. It's impossible for me to argue with someone who denies an obvious fact, and says skin color is the same all over India.


News flash: there are THREE distinct races in the world; negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid. That makes ALL Indians Caucasoid.You're proud of being Indian, and at the same time you believe you're caucasian? Interesting that everybody, even those who hate whites, wants to be white!;)


Color of skin has nothing to do with actual features. Yes, Brahmins are generally lighter-skinned than their sUdra counterparts but that is mainly because Brahmins are not in the fields doing back-breaking work in the Indian summer. They're indoors doing prayers etc.Climate has nothing to do with skin color. Whites living in Africa are not getting darker, and Blacks living in Switzerland are not getting any lighter. We're talking race and genes here...


First, there are NO Aryans in Europe; never was, never will be. Europeans and all non-Hindus are MLECCHAS (untouchables!!).
All this stems from anger, and am not really bothered. I made this thread to understand history better, not to enter into an 'us' vs 'them' contest.


You have no idea what you're talking about. Dasyus in the Rg Veda are not Dravidians! They are the 'fallen-Aryas' or the clans that were once part of Aryavarta (INDIA) but were driven out. Why is skin-color so important to you? Are you white? Are you that desperate to feel good about yourself? All this is your speculation. Dasyus are described as dark natives defeated by the Aryans. Not that I believe it, I'd like to take this as an allegory as most AIT opponents would. But how? It seems way too literal to be taken metaphorically.


This is the last straw. Just STFU. Really. Hindus have given the world mathematics (numeral system, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, decimal system etc.), philosophy (Vedanta), LANGUAGE (Sanskrit) & consequently literature (Vedas, Upanishads, etc.), and many other things. The westerners promptly robbed other countries and races and made themselves appear rich in the 19th & 20th centuries. India was the RICHEST COUNTRY (materially as well!) until 1850. This is after 1100 years of pillaging by barbarians (christians & muslims). And many practical inventions (like engineers who use physical principles) have been made by the Chinese, Sumerians, & Arabs.History doesn't prove any of this. These are claims made by hindutvadis, that hindus invented everything, the west robbed everyone (as if they didn't have anything better to do). Besides, wealth of a nation has nothing to do with resources you find there, it's measured in terms of development. Congo is rich, because it's got diamonds, but would you call it a first-world nation? No, because there's no development.

So India may have been rich in this sense (having lots of land and resources), doesn't mean India was civilized or developed. Keep in mind this is how AIT proponents reason, even though we'd all like to believe that India is the best.



You invade a country thinking it is filled with barbarians and uncivilized savages but instead you find sources, texts, evidence of a incredibly advanced society philosophically, scientifically, and traditionally. Your first thought would be, "Wait, these curry munchers couldn't have come up with this stuff! They're too DARK to figure out stuff like this. All they know is to make curry and dance around trees (Bollywood). Of course, the apparent squalor of the place is great evidence for this. There has to be a mistake! I thump the bible at least 5 times a day and the earth is only 6000 years old! So, this civilization cannot be older than 1500 BCE. This great treasure-trove of philosophical and scientific material must have been brought from elsewhere as these savages are too dim to have figured it out for themselves! But who? Oh yes! US, the GREAT WHITE MAN! Let's re-write these curry munchers' history so that it shows the superiority of the WHITE MAN & christianity over these rat & snake worshipping savages! Let us jack the Swastika & the word Arya to represent the White race."To give a simple example, let's say your neighbor has never passed an exam in his life. One fine day, he says he's got into Harvard. Why would you believe it? Hopefully, you can relate this example to AIT, and see why the world finds it hard to believe that India could've come up with anything significant. Again, I am not saying I believe in AIT, just saying this is how the whole thing works. The world always looks at the past in terms of the present, and when it does, AIT seems more appealing to logic and reason.


White people seem to have to incessantly try to "prove" that other races have not contributed to civilization or that somehow there are ultimately inferior. Pretty sad and lame. As HINDUS are the wealthiest and most educated minority in the US!!The answer to the question in your first line is given (by yourself) in the last line! Just as you'd like to prove that your race is superior, others feel the same way. It's human nature, it isn't exclusive to whites. Most Indians compete with each other, even in pre-school, so this is common to all people, the desire to compete, to conquer, to prove one is superior. Indians do it all the same, so no point in blaming whites.


If I seemed offensive in my post, well, it's because it is highly irksome to read the same nonsense of the AIT over and over again. It has been disproven thoroughly!Apology accepted.

TatTvamAsi
22 June 2008, 12:45 AM
Exceptions don't make a rule. Just because some South Indian actors are light-skinned, it doesn't change the fact that SIs are predominantly dark-skinned. We're considering the whole race, just not celebrities. Besides, these light-skinned people from South could be Brahmins, in all likelihood. Either way, the point is, exceptions are just that, exceptions, and cannot be considered as evidence.
..and says skin color is the same all over India.



You just don't get it do you? The skin color may vary depending upon geographical location, RACE doesn't! All Indians are the same RACE.
And, there are plenty of people in the South who are fair-skinned and many dark-skinned North Indians.



You're proud of being Indian, and at the same time you believe you're caucasian? Interesting that everybody, even those who hate whites, wants to be white!;)

I "believe" I'm white? When did I say that? You think only white people are caucasoids? What RACE do you consider Indians to be? Negroid? Mongoloid? You obviously have sawdust in your skull.



Climate has nothing to do with skin color. Whites living in Africa are not getting darker, and Blacks living in Switzerland are not getting any lighter. We're talking race and genes here...

since when did I say blacks & whites are the same race? Furthermore, you're deluded to think skin color has nothing to do with climate! Ever heard of something called a "TAN"?!? ;)



All this is your speculation. Dasyus are described as dark natives defeated by the Aryans. Not that I believe it, I'd like to take this as an allegory as most AIT opponents would. But how? It seems way too literal to be taken metaphorically.

And that is merely YOUR speculation. Furthermore, instead of blabbering, why don't you quote the exact verses from Rg and then debate it based on actual text. There is no need for allegories here. Show exactly which verse and how it describes "Dasyus as dark natives"!



History doesn't prove any of this. These are claims made by hindutvadis, that hindus invented everything, the west robbed everyone (as if they didn't have anything better to do). Besides, wealth of a nation has nothing to do with resources you find there, it's measured in terms of development.

Are you serious? hahah. Do research on your own and see for yourself. So you think India was not developed? In terms of what? big bridges and highways? Is that why Britain considered India the Crown Jewel of its Empire? Is that why Christopher Columbus wanted to find India?




Just as you'd like to prove that your race is superior. Indians do it all the same, so no point in blaming whites.

Since when did I want to prove Indians are superior? Can you read properly? When westerners suggest Indians are inferior, for example through AIT, Indians suggest they are NOT inferior. This does not mean that they automatically assume that they are superior.

Btw, what part of India are you from? You sound like a coolie of the west, much like that Nehru was.


Apology accepted.

I didn't apologize. :D

dhruva023
22 June 2008, 08:42 AM
History doesn't prove any of this. These are claims made by hindutvadis, that hindus invented everything, the west robbed everyone (as if they didn't have anything better to do). Besides, wealth of a nation has nothing to do with resources you find there, it's measured in terms of development. Congo is rich, because it's got diamonds, but would you call it a first-world nation? No, because there's no development.



You really need to study history. Let me guess, you must studied in english medium. the school probably something related to Saint Xavier.

Have you ever read Ramayana or Mahabharata ? you probably think it's a story for kids. Please consider reading at least one time.


please read some links

http://www.thevedicfoundation.org/authentic_hinduism/what_is_authentic_hinduism.htm

http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/04/28/ancient-indian-scientists/

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/index_new.htm

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory.htm

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 09:26 AM
You just don't get it do you? The skin color may vary depending upon geographical location, RACE doesn't! All Indians are the same RACE.
And, there are plenty of people in the South who are fair-skinned and many dark-skinned North Indians.

I don't know how many times I am gonna repeat this: exceptions don't make the rule. By sheer number alone, your point will become invalid. Besides, those fair-skinned SIs you refer to are mostly Brahamins, or they may have brahmin blood due to inter-caste marriages (that took place during/after invasion).


I "believe" I'm white? When did I say that? You think only white people are caucasoids? What RACE do you consider Indians to be? Negroid? Mongoloid? You obviously have sawdust in your skull.It's better not to abuse people. There are three races, like you mention, dravidians negroid not only due to skin color but due to features like big nose, thick lips, curly hair etc. Brahmins are whites/caucasians, North East people are mongoloids. Some Indians may have facial features resembling caucasians, but with dark skin color. This is an obvious case of aryan-dravid mix, identical to children born of white-black interracial marriages.


since when did I say blacks & whites are the same race? Furthermore, you're deluded to think skin color has nothing to do with climate! Ever heard of something called a "TAN"?!? ;)A tan-skinned white still looks like a white, it's impossible to mistake him for a non-white. So climate doesn't alter skin color so much that racially similar people (which NIs and SIs are, according to your claim) look totally different.


Are you serious? hahah. Do research on your own and see for yourself. So you think India was not developed? In terms of what? big bridges and highways? Is that why Britain considered India the Crown Jewel of its Empire? Is that why Christopher Columbus wanted to find India?I want to invade Congo, does it mean Congo is developed? No, it simply means Congo has wealth in the form of diamonds, which I wish to plunder. Likewise, just because some people wanted to invade India isn't proof that India was developed, it simply means India had resources, which they wished to plunder. No evidence that India was civilized.


Since when did I want to prove Indians are superior? Can you read properly? When westerners suggest Indians are inferior, for example through AIT, Indians suggest they are NOT inferior. This does not mean that they automatically assume that they are superior.Your anger is preventing you from understanding simple things. You make the accusation that westerners want to show Indians are inferior through various methods, including AIT. In response, I said: This isn't some habit typical of westerners, Indians also try to show that they're superior. So it's the case of pot calling the kettle black.:)


Btw, what part of India are you from? You sound like a coolie of the west, much like that Nehru was.People who can't reason often resort to such abuse.;)


I didn't apologize. :DPerhaps, you should.

indianx
22 June 2008, 10:13 AM
Climate has nothing to do with skin color. Please tell me you're kidding.


Humans have spent most of their history moving around. To do that, they've had to adapt their tools, clothes, housing, and eating habits to each new climate and landscape. But Jablonski's work indicates that our adaptations go much further. People in the tropics have developed dark skin to block out the sun and protect their body's folate reserves. People far from the equator have developed fair skin to drink in the sun and produce adequate amounts of vitamin D during the long winter months.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html

What academic source do you have to support your opinion?

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 10:14 AM
Just a small clarification.

When I said everyone wants to be white, I was referring to third-worlders in general, not just Indians. It's a fact that everyone wants to imitate the winner, and imitation is the highest form of flattery. As whites are winners, every non-white wants to be more like them, it's simple psychology, no surprises here.

This is why we often find third-worlders (including chinese, indians, and pretty much everyone else) competing with each other as to who's 'more' white, both in terms of skin color and with respect to other aspects of 'whiteness' such as culture etc. Doesn't this prove white superiority, so much so non-whites practically wish they were white?! And doesn't this indirectly prove AIT?:(

Again, I am just thinking out loud, and if it bothers anyone, please let me know and I'll stop posting.

indianx
22 June 2008, 10:21 AM
As whites are winners,

Satay, I don't know what the forum policy is towards racism, but I would recommend that you at least warn the racist.


Doesn't this prove white superiority,

No, I would contend that you have made a false generalization. And to what extent that it can be applied to some of the countries you've listed, it is explained by the fact that these countries were stifled under the oppression of 'white' Christian countries for close to two or three centuries. This is basic postcolonial psychoanalysis. Read Dr. Frantz Fanon's book, "Black Skins, White Masks." When you've been oppressed for centuries under a certain power structure, when you've been inculcated for generations as to the certainty and validity of that structure, you're naturally going to associate with and relate to that hierarchy.

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 10:24 AM
Please tell me you're kidding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html

What academic source do you have to support your opinion?

What does this prove anyway? A white person, even if he becomes dark, can always be recognized as a white person. That's the whole point, which you're missing. So if SIs are racially similar to NIs, they must be recognized as such (just like North and Southern Italians being recognized as part of the same race), despite climate supposedly affecting their skin color. But that isn't the case, and that's where the hole is in your theory.:)

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 10:28 AM
Satay, I don't know what the forum policy is towards racism, but I would recommend that you at least warn the racist.


Again, a misunderstanding. I am not suggesting whites are winners. But it's true that third-worlders perceive whites as winners (note the word 'perceive'), which explains why they often try to be 'white' in all ways possible, bleaching their skin and all. This is what I am saying, there's a difference between saying 'whites are winners' as an absolute statement, and a statement such as: Non-whites perceive whites to be winners. The keyword again is the word 'perceive.'

In short, I am talking of the perception of most non-whites regarding whites, and not of the whites at all.

indianx
22 June 2008, 11:14 AM
third-worlders perceive whites as winners

Once again, I think that's a false generalization. Looking at the global political stage today, I think that the opposite is more accurate. Your so-called 'third-worlders', which, I guess, from your past posts, includes China, have essentially formed blocs against your so-called 'white' nations. There are a number of reasons why the US isn't regarded well in the Middle East and Asia.

To what extent there are misguided people who refuse to remove the shackles of colonialism and its legacy, their behaviour is typical of a perverse sense of being postcolonial appurtenances.

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 11:27 AM
Once again, I think that's a false generalization. Looking at the global political stage today, I think that the opposite is more accurate. Your so-called 'third-worlders', which, I guess, from your past posts, includes China, have essentially formed blocs against your so-called 'white' nations. There are a number of reasons why the US isn't regarded well in the Middle East and Asia.

To what extent there are misguided people who refuse to remove the shackles of colonialism and its legacy, their behaviour is typical of a perverse sense of being postcolonial appurtenances.

I am not talking geo-politics here. I am referring to people in these third-world countries. Even if they hate whites, they want to be like them. Which is why, chinese who 'hate' whites do nose jobs to look more caucasian, japanese (who also 'hate' whites) cartoon characters look more white than japanese, fairness cream industry in India is a huge industry, and so on and so forth. All this points to the fact that even those who claim to hate whites try to emulate them at all times.;)

srivijaya
22 June 2008, 11:59 AM
I am not talking geo-politics here. I am referring to people in these third-world countries. Even if they hate whites, they want to be like them. Which is why, chinese who 'hate' whites do nose jobs to look more caucasian, japanese (who also 'hate' whites) cartoon characters look more white than japanese, fairness cream industry in India is a huge industry, and so on and so forth. All this points to the fact that even those who claim to hate whites try to emulate them at all times.;)

Hi socialdarwinist,
Thanks for the highly amusing thread, it gave me something to laugh about. I know you're trolling but it would be worth your while checking out stuff on the Indus Valley civilization, as that throws light on India's pre-history.

Don't forget that Germanic tribes in Northern Europe who had centuries of contact with Rome took a painfully long time to finally get "civilized". Now if you had a straight choice between living in India 300AD or Germania 300AD, there'd be no contest - enough said I feel.

indianx
22 June 2008, 12:39 PM
fairness cream industry in India

The tanning industry (whites trying to look brown) was worth 4.2 billion in 2000 in the US alone. It has, since then, grown larger in both the US and Europe. Your logic would lead to a conclusion antithetical to what you've been trying to spout here.

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 01:51 PM
The tanning industry (whites trying to look brown) was worth 4.2 billion in 2000 in the US alone. It has, since then, grown larger in both the US and Europe. Your logic would lead to a conclusion antithetical to what you've been trying to spout here.

Not at all. The whites who go for tanning are NOT doing it because they like to resemble third-worlders (please don't make me laugh!), they feel some color to their pale skin would make them look good. Third-worlders, on the other hand, want to look and act white, because they feel it gives them an air of superiority. All this is fairly obvious, but I can't convince people who are in denial.:)

socialdarwinist
22 June 2008, 01:56 PM
Hi socialdarwinist,
Thanks for the highly amusing thread, it gave me something to laugh about. I know you're trolling but it would be worth your while checking out stuff on the Indus Valley civilization, as that throws light on India's pre-history.

Don't forget that Germanic tribes in Northern Europe who had centuries of contact with Rome took a painfully long time to finally get "civilized". Now if you had a straight choice between living in India 300AD or Germania 300AD, there'd be no contest - enough said I feel.

Sorry, but your post makes no sense at all. Taking one line out of context and commenting on it isn't very mature of you. Try again!:)

satay
22 June 2008, 02:27 PM
Admin Note

I don't understand why people lie when they register and 'accept' the rules of the site then turn around and start breaking them right off the bat. (sigh).

It is a sad fact of kali yuga that a lot of so called "Indians" are getting born in India by accident and then these so called 'Indians' support the garbage nonsense junk like AIT which has been debunked by many scholars.

If an Indian doesn't know the real meaning of 'Aryan' and his or her parents are so incompetent that they couldn't teach the meaning of this word to their children then I would have to question the claim of these people to be Indians.

And for those interested in knowing the answer of OP, here a Non-Indian scholar, Dr. Elst puts an end to this useless debunked racist theory http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/index.htm :cool1:

Please note that the thread is under review...