4 ms·

I was with you until: > India comes from the Greek word, which is describing a feature of the terrain I'm not a scholar on these matters, but my impression wa

I was with you until: > India comes from the Greek word, which is describing a feature of the terrain I'm not a scholar on these matters, but my impression was always that the terms 'India' and 'Hindu' were closely related. It's not like the Greeks just made up a Greek name for the place. From your source: > The name [India] is derived ultimately from Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the river and > The name Hind (Persian: هند‎‎) is derived from the Iranian equivalent of Indo-Aryan Sindh

wutbrodo 11y ago
I agree. I was just making the narrowest claim possible by sticking to the word that is phonetically closest to "India" specifically (Ἰνδία). I've learned to get into the habit of using the weakest possible evidence necessary to make your point because you expose less of a surface for people to spin off into irrelevant objections (and by the time that's resolved, the main point is forgotten or one or both parties have lost interest). To wit, if I had talked about the Sindh or Hind roots, I would've opened the conversation up to a derailing diversion on how my main point was supported only by an unfair goalpost-moving from "India" to "Hind". I know it's a little ironic that this is sort of what ended up happening anyway with this comment, but at least in this case I can firewall my main point off by saying "sure, using your suggestion doesn't affect my main point (or indeed strengthens it)".
- marshray 11y ago
  The interesting thing is the GGP post claimed: > [The term India] was not used by people in that area to describe themselves until european colonialists and occupiers arrived and promoted the term. But your source indicates it was Persians who used the term Hindus while they had conquered India. So it's probably not entirely true that European colonialists gave the country its present name, except maybe to prefer the Greek variant over the Persian. The underlying problem here is that non-wandering non-seafaring peoples often had no good pre-established name for themselves. The question "what is the name of your people and land" was sort of nonsensical to them. They might answer a term like "the people" or "the land" in the local language. The term "Aryan" literally seems to mean "the land" or "farmer" as in "one who works the land". But the land they're referring to is ... Iran. Get it? It's the same word. White supremicists actually love Iranians.

wutbrodo 11y ago

I agree. I was just making the narrowest claim possible by sticking to the word that is phonetically closest to "India" specifically (Ἰνδία). I've learned to get into the habit of using the weakest possible evidence necessary to make your point because you expose less of a surface for people to spin off into irrelevant objections (and by the time that's resolved, the main point is forgotten or one or both parties have lost interest). To wit, if I had talked about the Sindh or Hind roots, I would've opened the conversation up to a derailing diversion on how my main point was supported only by an unfair goalpost-moving from "India" to "Hind". I know it's a little ironic that this is sort of what ended up happening anyway with this comment, but at least in this case I can firewall my main point off by saying "sure, using your suggestion doesn't affect my main point (or indeed strengthens it)".

marshray 11y ago
The interesting thing is the GGP post claimed: > [The term India] was not used by people in that area to describe themselves until european colonialists and occupiers arrived and promoted the term. But your source indicates it was Persians who used the term Hindus while they had conquered India. So it's probably not entirely true that European colonialists gave the country its present name, except maybe to prefer the Greek variant over the Persian. The underlying problem here is that non-wandering non-seafaring peoples often had no good pre-established name for themselves. The question "what is the name of your people and land" was sort of nonsensical to them. They might answer a term like "the people" or "the land" in the local language. The term "Aryan" literally seems to mean "the land" or "farmer" as in "one who works the land". But the land they're referring to is ... Iran. Get it? It's the same word. White supremicists actually love Iranians.