4 ms·

>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

>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) ] ]