...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Vedic Origins of the Europeans: the Children of Danu (Questions)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by coolnight: [qb] Thank you for your details responses Clyde. Am just trying to understand about South Asian genetics/history. Even though historically many different groups migrated to South Asia for some strange reason everything seems to always seems to focus on the Aryans. It is almost like deliberate confusion is being caused to keep the history of South Asia covered by having everyone fight over the Aryans a group(s) The term Aryan is far too ambiguous. It is used to refer to /being used by too many ethnically different groups (Iranians, Indians, Europeans) and is further confused by the term Indo-Aryan as opposed to just Aryan. For people who want a simple understanding of there roots this is all too confusing. What am trying to understand is when the South Asians talk about the Indo Aryans. I understand they are referring to a people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. The ancestors of some/many South Asians. These people (Indo-Aryans) I understand to be Ethnically NON-EUROPEAN people. I have then heard Europeans talk about how they are connected to the Aryans or refer to themselves as Aryans. Who are the Aryans Europeans are referring to when they call themselves Aryans?. Are they a ETHNICALLY EUROPEAN people they are referring to and IF so, then why are both South Asians and Europeans using the term Aryan to refer to TWO ETHNICALLY DISTINCT/DIFFERENT Racial groups?. Is it because there is a connection between the Indo-Aryans South Asians refer to (those who migrated from Iran) and the Aryans (Ethnic European people) Europeans refer to? Then on top I read about the Indo-Europeans who again are connected to this all this Aryan stuff. By this I understand when they Europeans refer to themselves as Aryans they are referring to one of these Indo-European tribes. So then if the Indo Aryans the South Asians speak of are not ethnically the same as the Aryans the Europeans speak of why and what exactly are both groups fighting over? Further to confuse matters is this whole claim that Indo-European languages were bought into South Asia by Indo-European speaking people. Therefore all South Asians who speak Indo European have Indo European genes which are basically European genes as there is no such thing as a Indo European. On top to further confuse things is the presence of this whole R1a haplogroup which DNA tests show many many South Asians have and apparently Europeans have too. So if the Aryans Europeans and South Asians speak of are Ethnically Distinct/different groups then which group does this R1a haplogroup belong to? Does it belong to the Indo-Aryans the South Asians speak (Ethnically NON-European people) or does it belong to the Aryans Europeans speak of (Indo-European Aryan tribe who were Europeans) If it belongs to the Indo-Europeans (Aryans-ethnic European types) then because so many why do so many South Asians have this gene? Is it because they ALL have european admixture? If it does not belong to the Indo European Aryans but to the Indo-Aryans (South Asian people) then why do Europeans have this gene? If the Aryans South Asians speak of were ethnically distinct from the Aryans Europeans speak of then what are both sides always fighting over? Is there an actual connection between these two ethnically distinct groups both refer to. If so, what is that connection? Am trying to understand the genetic impact of Europeans in South Asian (India/Pakistan). That is authentic european admixture. [/qb][/QUOTE]I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans. Some Hindu Nationalist have created animosity between Dravidians and Indo-Aryan speakers by claiming that politicians in South India are trying to divide India by claiming that Dravidian speakers were in India before the Indo-Aryan speaking Hindus. These Nationalist claim that genetics proves that Hindus speaking Aryan languages are the original inhabitants of India. This is false India, Scientific research has established the fact that India was settled by numerous populations and Indo-Aryan speakers only entered India around 1200 and 800 BC. The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians . Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers originated in India , but this is false Dravidian speakers come from Africa and belonged to the C-Group Culture of Nubia and the Fezzan. Because the Dravidians originated in Africa, haplogroup R1a probably originated in Africa were we find Africans that carry R1a and speak Tamil, a Dravidian language in Chad-Cameroon. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS). The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages. [b]‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans. The ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI) are the Dravidian speakers. The ASI, is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. [/b] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3