Re: Horses� Teeth and the Indo-European Homeland

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
wrote:

>
> --- 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.

Any history about a ruling class traces also their claim to rule. Even
if linguists won't use those histories that way, other people will.
The other day I saw a Swedish-Kurdish stand-upper tell his audience
that 'Actually, Odin was Kurd!'

>
> > 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 how the British and Nazis _used_ their own outdated invasion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?

They will be used by the same kind of people, just as then.

> > > 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?

The 'Aryan Invasion' of the AIT is an 'Indo-European Invasion', since
'Aryans' (IIr's) are Indo-European; and English is Indo-European.
Therefore what the AIT says in political terms is 'the top castes came
as conquerors and rule the land with the right of a conqueror, just
like the British did'. This doesn't look good if they just kicked the
British for not having the proper right to rule the country. This
reasoning is of course by the language = race model.

> 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?

Why would what assume what?

> > > 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.

Why is that relevant? I'm referring to other people's theories and
interpretations.

> > > 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.

I thought as much. Thank you for your candor.


Torsten