4 ms·

>Which presumably correlates in part to the India having experienced a large number of migrations over a fairly long period of time. This meme will end up bein

>Which presumably correlates in part to the India having experienced a large number of migrations over a fairly long period of time. This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. Another example is the eponymous R1 signature that people use to construct a particular narrative leave out the fact that R1 originated at the very least in Asia. Where exactly scientist have argued anywhere from Central, to South, to East Asia. A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. That is there is not just a single large number of migration from one area to another, but multiple, and in various directions.

_emacsomancer_ 9y ago
> This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. But presumably an ancestor shared by lots of other peoples too - I would guess European, North African, Middle Eastern, perhaps as well. > A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. Yes, and in interesting ways. But speaking a language and borrowing words from a language are two different things. I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets.
- thevardanian 9y ago
  >I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets. I'm not arguing against the similarities, but arguing against a central singular expansion of some group of peoples that just so coincidently called themselves "Aryan". That is there is no evidence for a singular people/civilization that originated the whole "indo-aryans". The only "Aryans" are the Vedic era nobility that has its roots in India/sanskrit. That is the word "Aryan" is a gross example of extreme racism, prejudice, and cultural appropriate to further a racist model of human history.
  - _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
    "Indo-Aryan" is a widely-used technical term for a particular branch of Indo-European (actually, a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages. We could call it "Indic" if that is your preference. [Racists usurping "Aryan" for a different meaning is not what I'm talking about here, in any shape or form. Edit to add: Yes, extending 'Aryan' to cover any larger entity than Indo-Iranian is not justified, but "Aryan" is not limited to Indic speakers:--- the Iranians certainly used a form of "Aryan" as well: thus derives the name of "Iran" itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_(word) ] ]

_emacsomancer_ 9y ago

> This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. But presumably an ancestor shared by lots of other peoples too - I would guess European, North African, Middle Eastern, perhaps as well. > A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. Yes, and in interesting ways. But speaking a language and borrowing words from a language are two different things. I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets.

thevardanian 9y ago
>I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets. I'm not arguing against the similarities, but arguing against a central singular expansion of some group of peoples that just so coincidently called themselves "Aryan". That is there is no evidence for a singular people/civilization that originated the whole "indo-aryans". The only "Aryans" are the Vedic era nobility that has its roots in India/sanskrit. That is the word "Aryan" is a gross example of extreme racism, prejudice, and cultural appropriate to further a racist model of human history.
- _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
  "Indo-Aryan" is a widely-used technical term for a particular branch of Indo-European (actually, a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages. We could call it "Indic" if that is your preference. [Racists usurping "Aryan" for a different meaning is not what I'm talking about here, in any shape or form. Edit to add: Yes, extending 'Aryan' to cover any larger entity than Indo-Iranian is not justified, but "Aryan" is not limited to Indic speakers:--- the Iranians certainly used a form of "Aryan" as well: thus derives the name of "Iran" itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_(word) ] ]