tantra_i

This is a question for CS and LP..

According to the Aryan Invasion Theory , India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture. This so-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been called the "Indus valley culture" (as most of its initial sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of light and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples.
The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 4000 BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.

The above is the basis for the ART. This is where it all started. This assumes that beleivers in the ART believe in biblical chronology.

I am not a believer in Biblical chronology based on scientific evidence. This is one of the reasons for me not to believe in the ART.
I was hoping if you could provide arguments and evidence to establish the above. ( please keep subject matter relevant to the above evidence presented by me).

phaedrus

Well some latest news on the issue....the findings have to be examined more critically...but still ....

<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991808" target="_blank">Drowned Indian city could be world's oldest </a>

ChristianSkeptic

phaedrus:Well some latest news on the issue....the findings have to be examined more critically...but still ....

Thanks for the new info Phaedrus and your continued interest.

Interesting reading. If the findings are further confirmed I guess it would mean India is the mother of us all but I do not understand how the new findings would have direct bearing on my case for ART (social race theory etc etc).

However, if they find horse remains that could cast serious doubt, to state the least, on LP's case

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: ChristianSkeptic ]</p>

karthik

It is generally hypothesized that the Harappan civilization was Dravidian in nature and that they were pushed into south india by invading hordes. Apparently some languages still spoken in Afganisthan/Pakistan (Brahui for one) have dravidian roots than Indo-European. OTOH, there are no references to the massacres by aryans of the dravidians in a single classical dravidian literature. Infact the tamil (the oldest dravidian language) classics speak highly about the supremacy of vedas and of brahminic rituals. Tamil epics talk about how people celebrated "Indhra Vizhas" (Festivals for Indra) without any under-current of resentment for a preeminent aryan god, which Indra is.

This is my first post on the most intelligent discussion forum on the web. So dont be too hard on me :-)

ChristianSkeptic

Welcome to the discussion Karthik

Karthik:…there are no references to the massacres by aryans of the dravidians in a single classical dravidian literature….

ChristianSkeptic (CS): The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Karthik: In fact the tamil (the oldest dravidian language) classics speak highly about the supremacy of vedas and of brahminic rituals. Tamil epics talk about how people celebrated "Indhra Vizhas" (Festivals for Indra) without any under-current of resentment for a preeminent aryan god, which Indra is.

CS: In my case for Aryan Race Theory-Aryan Invasion Theory in the formal debate discussion forum (October 12), The Missionary's Swastika: Racism as an Evangelical Weapon I make [the case] that the "conquest" was concentrated in the north [along] the Great Indo-Gangetic Plain and I also make the case for soft ART-AIT/cultural imperialism which was probably [the case] in the south.

[See link @:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000004" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000004</a> ]

Your feedback on my case would be appreciated as I now have the impression that I was a bit [indirect at times], but correct nevertheless

Karthik: This is my first post on the most intelligent discussion forum on the web. So dont be too hard on me :-)

CS: Thanks for taking the time to respond to my thread. I look forward to our future correspondence.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: ChristianSkeptic ]</p>

hinduwoman

CS, if you study the Vedas or Ramayana or Dravidian literature carefully, you will realize that large scale massacres have not taken place.

There were several conflicts, even big wars, but both sides were equally strong. Most of the prayers in Vedas were to complain about how the Aryans were having their butt kicked by nonVedic tribes and can the gods please help out? the later literature shows that settlements were reached between the two groups. Genocide simply did not happen, though wars did.

ChristianSkeptic

Thanks Hindu Woman for your continued interest and engagement

I am sorry for having to withdraw from our renewed dance.

Maybe you have noticed, from my updated profile, that I have moved to another town, and I am currently in the process of getting acclimated or better yet synchronized with my new environment.

Until I have the time (I have started a major research project) to read and mull over your posts and my materials, my post will not be as detailed as I would like.

You and I agree on the point that there was, sadly I think, violent conflict. I have never made the point that there were “massacres” of any size. I would make the point now that such items of Hinduism (please correct me if I am wrong) the depiction of God as black represents a compromise as a result of these conflicts as you described them.

However, if and only if, Western Race Theory, as I outlined in the debate is true as a fact of science or social convention, and if, for the sake of argument, some negative, cynical, irrational and sinful assumptions about the Caucasian Race are accepted then it would be the case that the compromises represent how the Aryans being Caucasian predecessors-invaders, of the later British Caucasian-invaders, at the time readily conceded all or at least compromised on spiritual matters while obtaining materials gains for themselves.

I derived this point from combining the idea that the science of material gain was written by a Brahmin (which I assume(?) was a Caucasian/Aryan) and what I read as a university student from the book entitled “India Waits.” {published 1984)

India Waits, in its latter pages makes the point that the British (which I assume are Caucasian/(?)Aryans) readily conceded spiritual matters to Indians but aggressively pursued material gain.

This theory, albeit weak, links the British with their Aryan predecessors by noting their apparently common emotional priority (matertialism) and subsequent behavior pattern (aggressivness) of these fellow Caucasians.

This theory would account for the historical vast discrepancy in material possession (land) between twice born and others and the material accomplishments of the British in India.

I could make the case, for the sake of argument, in more detail, but my books on India et at. are now approximately 240 miles away and I have other work to do.

I await your opinion on this point Hindu Woman as we dance.