posted
The origin of the Gypsies is said to be unknown. Some say that they came out of Egypt and hence the name Gypcien or Egyptian. Others claim that they came from India. There are other people who say that the Gypsies were Egyptians or Black migrants to India.
In Simpson's "History of the Gypsies," he has provided credible evidence to prove that the Gypsies were Blacks.
The present-day Gypsies appear to be mixed. How true is this assertion?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The language of the Roma people (what you call "gypsies") has been shown to be closely related to Indian (specifically Aryan) languages, so they probably were from India. As to whether they were "black migrants to India", Indians were probably all black before the Aryans arrived and are still darker-skinned today despite centuries of admixture, so the Gypsies wouldn't need to have come from outside India to be black.
posted
^How about the Polish? What's their story?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indians were probably all black before the Aryans arrived and are still darker-skinned today despite centuries of admixture
There is no evidence of any Aryan invasion, it's all a big hoax. All languages of india developed in situ. Sanskrit certainly didn't come with any germanic looking invaders, that's for sure.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Yonis on this one. While there may have been various wars and intrusions with the central asian Kingdoms to the North of India (Huns, Monghols, Mughals, Turkic Muslims, etc), no white Aryan population invaded India and gave it its culture. In fact most of this craze for depicting all the rulers and "high caste" figures, including deities, with white skin in India and South Asia, is something that started within the last thousand years or so.
Last Mughal of India (One of the last Indian kingdoms not controlled by the British and the British puppet Raj kingdoms):
Wife and children
As he is depicted in popular literature:
There were tons of ancient kingdoms and cultures populated and ruled by dark skinned people across South Asia that were encountered by Europeans. Of course, because of their racism, they had to invent some way of masking this and inventing some white origin for all these people.
Rulers of Surakarta including Raden Saleh, first modern Artist painter in Indonesia:
There were black Kings, Queens, Princes, Princesses and Sultans all over India, Pakistan, and South Asia when the Europeans arrived, but of course they didn't like blacks so they hid it and instilled a craze for white skin among the masses, by creating the aryan myth.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: The language of the Roma people (what you call "gypsies") has been shown to be closely related to Indian (specifically Aryan) languages, so they probably were from India. As to whether they were "black migrants to India", Indians were probably all black before the Aryans arrived and are still darker-skinned today despite centuries of admixture, so the Gypsies wouldn't need to have come from outside India to be black.
Actually not only is the Roma language a Rajasthani Indian derived language, but genetics has proven that the Roma (Gypsies) are indeed of Indian descent, specifically from Rajasthan. They even suffer from genetic diseases that are specific to peoples of the Indian subcontinent.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Indians were probably all black before the Aryans arrived and are still darker-skinned today despite centuries of admixture
There is no evidence of any Aryan invasion, it's all a big hoax. All languages of india developed in situ. Sanskrit certainly didn't come with any germanic looking invaders, that's for sure.
Correct. There is no evidence of any Aryan invasion or migration. If there was any migration at all it was too small to affect the popualtions of India. The 'Aryanization' was due acculturation.
But getting back to the point, the only reason why the Roma were given the misnomer of 'Gypsy' meaning from Egypt is due to their very dark or 'black' appearance at least of the first Roma people that entered Europe. Practically all Roma today are mixed with European.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indians were probably all black before the Aryans arrived and are still darker-skinned today despite centuries of admixture
There is no evidence of any Aryan invasion, it's all a big hoax. All languages of india developed in situ. Sanskrit certainly didn't come with any germanic looking invaders, that's for sure.
I will agree that the Indians were already Black. But there was an Aryan invansion.
The culture associated with this invasion is the grey ware. This is the only way we can explain the Aryan languages spoken by most northern Indians; and the traditions of nomadic invanders entering India attacking the city-dwellers in the Veda.
posted
Maybe people don't like the way "Invasion" sounds. But there was definitely a migration that ending in war and conquering and eventually oppression. And yes there were already Black Asians ruling and in power when white asians decided to "migrate".
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the problem is that people try and make it seem that one massive invasion into India that all of a sudden conquered the whole sub continent, gave it writing and language and subjugated hundreds of millions of Indians to Aryan rule.
Sorry, but there was no such singular event that occurred in fact.
Now that the Aryan Invasion theory has been debunked, the next big thing is the linguistic origins of the Hindu languages and culture.
But here is the problem, all of these theories leave a huge gap between the urban literate culture of the Harappans and the later so-called Indo-Aryans. Why the gap? How come a fully developed, sophisticated, urbanized culture with writing, religion and culture and up to 5 million people just vanish? The Harappan civilization extends from 3300 B.C. to 1900 B.C. then all of a sudden all serious city building and architecture STOPS DEAD and there no real noticeable evidence of any sort of advanced urban civilization on the scale of Harappa to appear again until 1400 years later? What the hell is this?
The main thing to remember is that Harappa was one of the prime motivating forces behind the cultures between the Tigris and the Indus Valley and the cultures of the Elamites are often cited as having been influenced by them. The writing of the Harappans is very similar to that of cuneiform and the stamp writing of Mesopotamia.
So what it seems like to me is that some historians would rather gloss over the OBVIOUS impact of INDIGENOUS Indian culture and language on cultures to the West by focusing on the arrival of the Indo Aryans, who really did nothing anywhere near as significant in terms of large civilizations in the 1500 years between the end of Harappa and the Ashoka kingdoms. In fact, given that Harappa had its own writing and language, it would be MORE IMPORTANT to understand the impact of HARAPPAN languages on teh development of later Indo European tongues. Harappan language has not been deciphered yet. However, it still is obvious that it had a role in the development of Indo-Aryan languages as it existed long before anything called Indo-Aryan (Hindu) languages like Sanskrit existed.
I still don't see why they aren't spending more time on Harappan culture as the beginning of Indo-Iranian culture and language, versus worrying about some script that was developed long after. It is like they are so frustrated that the Harappan culture is so purely indigenous that they would rather skip over it and focus on the arrival of Aryans (whites) as the beginning of serious Indian history. All of which is a travesty of history, logic and science.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Interestingly enough, you have a similar situation with early Greek history in that you have the establishment of early civilization in the Aegean area by non-Indo-European speaking peoples, then a 'Dark Age' and all of a sudden Indo-European speaking Greek 'Classical' period. Although its clear Greek languages appeared long after the establishment of urban culture and writing, there is still no evidence of an invasion of anykind let alone a mass invasion that altered the population.
There seems to be a general consensus among scholars now that the whole Indo-European domination of many regions is primarily if not totally a process of acculturation and is not attributed to any mass immigration of foreign populations. This is further supported by genetics in that there is no known genetic signature or lineage associated with Indo-European.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indians were probably all black before the Aryans arrived and are still darker-skinned today despite centuries of admixture
There is no evidence of any Aryan invasion, it's all a big hoax. All languages of india developed in situ. Sanskrit certainly didn't come with any germanic looking invaders, that's for sure.
Scholarly consensus suggests that the Urheimat of Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit was located in Central Asia or eastern Europe, so while these "Aryans" were probably swarthier than Scandinavians, they were still light-skinned relative to the sort of tropically-adapted people which would have evolved in India. This strongly suggests that there is some truth to the Aryan Invasion theory (i.e. light-skinned people migrating and interbreeding with black-skinned natives) despite its unpopularity with Hindus---and, to be honest, it makes a lot more sense to me. Am I supposed to believe that people who look like this would have evolved naturally, without any foreign admixture, in the hot climate of India?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Central Asians are relatively light-skinned or fair as can be seen with Iranian groups like the Persians or the Afghans. some peoples in northern parts of Central Asia even Afghanistan have light colored hair and eyes. But non of this has to do with Indians who are much darker or "swarthy" as you say and definitely those who are black but all speak Indo-Aryan languages.
The 'Aryanization' of India was a cultural process and had nothing to do with any mass migration or invasion.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic