--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> No Aryan invasion ever overtly claimed that. It's implicit in all
> such theories.
Oh is it, in all theories? I've certainly never subscribed
myself to any theory claiming India was invaded by Celts or
Scandinavians.
> What do you think all the 'We were here first' of la raza is
> about?
I certainly know what it's about, and I'm certainly aware of
how the British and Nazis _used_ their own outdated invasion
theories, but what has that to do with any legitimate modern
theory of how Indo-Aryan languages entered India?
> > India is presently a democracy, so in what sense does it have
> > a ruling class, much less a class consistently related to any
> > other group, including the ancient Aryans?
>
> I suggest you go look yourself.
Oh you've been to India and thoroughly surveyed the situation,
have you? Please tell us where you published your findings.
I'd hate to have to get on a plane, fly to India, and stay a
few months doing research there before I could be entitled to
continue arguing with you.
> > Moreover the British aren't Aryan, certainly not genetically,
> > but not even culturally or linguistically. English isn't an
> > Indo-Iranian language.
>
> Is that so, genius?
Yes, that's so, and is at the very heart of the matter, for
if according to an Aryan invasion theory the British aren't
Aryans, then how can that theory be said to implicity claim
the brahmans more closely related to the British than to the
lower castes?
This all assumes too, by the way, that either the brahmans
or the British, if not both, are somehow among the "purest"
modern genetic representatives of the Proto-Indo-Europeans
(not Aryans), which I don't believe has ever been properly
proven for either group, has it?
> > Can you really look at two Indians side by side, from any two
> > castes, and find them less closely related to one another than
> > either to a typical Briton, Torsten?
>
> Erh, what?
There's nothing ambiguous about the question.
> > Such a conclusion is a necessary one for a nationalist only.
>
> Weren't you threatening to move to Denmark if the nationalists
> were making life too unpleasant for people of your ethnic
> background in the country in which you are presently domiciled?
No, not threatening, but offering the hope to you, albeit
a small one, that your country might someday be honored by
my family's presence. How could such ever be interpreted
as a threat?!
I don't think we'll move quite yet, though. Better to wait
until after Denmark has been properly orientalized by its
new immigrants. I don't really care much for Scandinavian
food, music, sports, etc. We already have more than enough
of that sort of stuff right where it belongs: in Minnesota.
However what does any of that have to do with my rejecting
your notions about who might have the right to rule whom?
A smoke screen maybe?
David