@omarali50 @blog_supplement Don't agree with the claim of "white people" at all. We already have early iron age swat samples and modern Indian jAti-s like Kashmiri PaNDita-s and Khatri-s cluster with the ancient Arya.
Not only this, but Fatyanovo (In the steppe)itself was mostly dark haired and brown eyed
@omarali50 @blog_supplement Not to mention "whiteness" itself is a very ahistorical and anachronistic concept. Myceanean Greeks had 5-10% Steppe Ancestry (less than many Indian chamAr-s/chANDala-s) today. Are Ancient Greeks "brown", "asian" or "european" ? Dr. Khan doesn't seem to have been objective here.
@omarali50 @blog_supplement BTW, as for "Racial Evidence" of the RV. There is very little. The snub nose claim doesn't stand, it meant "mouthless"(an-ās & not a-nāsa). Also, "black skin" (mṛḍhavacaḥ) is glossed by Sayana as hiṃsitavāgindriyān (having defective speech organs). Well in line with "mleccha"
@omarali50 @blog_supplement As for dāsyu-s. They are clearly an Iranic tribe. Are Iranics now "black skinned harappans" ?
Rudra is mentioned with brown arms and tawny(golden hair). Do such people exist? Why look into anthropomorphy in a battle of religious rites?
The reason I don’t comment on caste issues is for two reasons
1) It makes Hs falsely think they are very divided people while Ms are united. (i.e- look up number of Alawite Shiites killed in Syria last year)
2) I blame UC elites for our problems, not OBCs SCs STs.
Let’s look at 1) first. The idea that Hindus are divided on caste and hate each other is a misleading myth. Hindus are fragmented but do not hate each other. Muslims have a veneer of unity but hate each other to the point of murder.
You must’ve heard of Muharram. Its a holiday in parts of India iirc. Do you know what its origins are? Its Shiites whipping themselves in solidarity with Ali’s family that was killed at the Battle of Karbala.
Most non-Muslims don’t know this but the reason the civil war in Islam was so sensitive was because the earliest Sunni Caliphs who were companions of the Prophet Mohammed literally murdered the family of the Prophet Mohammed.
The latter would marry their children to a Hindu of any caste before they would to the former. As Ambedkar had said, marital relations are the ultimate test of who is part of the tribe.
You will never be part of the family bc in the subcontinent Hindu vs Muslim is supra alles
All these posts are a waste of time to take seriously, I’m just writing this as PSA for people who respond to this stuff.
We already know who’s part of the tribe and who isn’t just by the marital relations test. Everything else is a waste with no real life consequences.
Cope. Live in the real world, not your online “communities”
In the real world, most Hindus want their kids to marry Hindus of same caste but would reluctantly be ok with other Hindus than a Muslim (automatic outcasted even for urbanite modern types)
When I was young and in America, I always knew I was Indian and my country was India. That's because I knew what it felt like to be an unquestioned majority in India and had an instinctive sense of "ownership" of the country.
In America, I saw my subcontinental friends act like confused ducklings because their liberal teachers, the zeitgeist and their civics classes told them they were also Americans, but it was a hasty and uncertain reality, which they hesitatingly accepted or rejected.
I tried to knock some sense into them, but it never worked properly. I always got told "You just think like a white guy, you dont think like a desi!"
By thinking like a white guy, they meant my instinctive tribal views on "who belongs" made them feel very queer at times.
Israel is a state run by a population (Ashkenazi Jews) with an average IQ of 115 surrounded by Arab states with an IQ of 80. It’s not too hard to see why such comical scenarios ensure.
The average Ashkenazi is more than 2 SD smarter than the average Arab Muslim.
People running Israeli intelligence would be 1 SD smarter than the average Ashkenazi, think an IQ of 130. For reference, more than 15% of Ashkenazi would have an IQ higher than 130.
Not even 1% of Arabs (average IQ 80-85) would have an IQ over 130.
Nice thread, since you are being candid and following historical trends somewhat respectfully, let me just provide my own response to it.
It was very difficult to draw strict lines of separation in theological identity in pre-modern primary religions, so what makes up Hinduism *theologically* is not a clear cut bullet point list. The identity of Hindu has always been subjective but it comes down to what Savarkar has said. Hindus are a people, tied by genetics, culture, language and ancestral connections to 1 homeland. Hindus are those people whose homeland is bhArata.
There is a common philosophical base of Vedanta-Upanishads in India from which all sects source beliefs (historically, from a materialist analysis). Sikhi clearly also sources concepts from this, like literally every Hindu sect, but all the sects have their own interpretation of those concepts or build on them further.
- karma, reincarnation (punarjanma), individual soul (atman), world soul (brahman), panentheism (brahman pervades everything, and everything is sourced in it), concept of dharma, reverence for cows etc
What defines a sect from a religion now from that sense is completely based on self-identity. MANY Hindu sects can just make an argument that we are totally different than *xyz other sect* and hence not the same "religion"
However, reasonably, people understand they share a common identity based on many things and don't feel the need to do so.
Sure, there was a "Sikh identity" but there was also a Gaudiya Vaishnav identity, Shri Vaishnav identity, Pashupatin identity, Lingayat identity etc historically.
There was even a Shrautin vs non Shrautin identity, this is the point. My point was at a time in history in the 20th century, a portion of Sikhs chose to further a separation from the rest of Hindu civilization for a variety of reasons and started rejecting both habits and scriptural ideas found in Gurbani itself.
Lot of Sikhs bet on the strategy of completely divorcing themselves from the bad reputation and stereotypes of India by calling themselves “Punjabis, Sikhs” and believing in that exceptionalism. Indians obviously took glee in it when North Americans started rejecting this shtick.
I’m also a Punjabi, but why should I do Punjabi exceptionalism? If I really want to divorce myself from India’s bad reputation, then who cares about ethnicity? I should just bring in my caste (Khatri) which is responsible for most of Punjabi history as well as being elite human capital in modernity.
The reality is regional and linguistic exceptionalism is cope. The only thing that’s real in India is caste and we don’t do caste exceptionalism because it’s impolite and we wanted to build a unified civilizational identity by sacrificing our own caste for wider goals like Hindutva/Dharma. Lot of non-Khatri Punjabis just didn’t get this. You lead from ahead, not from behind.