"Migration" v/s "Invasion"
The Rakhigarhi data is now out. There is little to no evidence of DNA markers corresponding to the Steppes people, there is some evidence of mixing with Iranian agriculturists. This new finding supports the ideas proposed in earlier papers about the mixing of Indian out-of-Africa indigenous peoples' with Iranian agriculturalists prior to mixing with people of Steppes genetics (the canonical "Aryans"). As the Rakhigarhi remains are dated via consistent stratigraphy and carbon dating, we can now safely say that the IVC itself was a "pre-Aryan" civilization.Quite naturally there is considerable upset in the Out-of-India crowd and so an attempt is being made to slant the interpretation of the results. (see this piece in ET).
A red flag in this piece is the use of the word "Invasion" to describe the influx of Aryans.
There has *NEVER* been any evidence of an Aryan invasion. There are linguistic peculiarities such a sudden shift in grammatical structure in Southern India but these are NOT evidence of an "Invasion". India was invaded by the British - no one changed the grammatical structure of any languages on account of that. There were shifts and vulgarization of various terms - the English language blended with Indian languages and vice-versa but no one changed grammatical forms because British Queen declared herself Emperess of India!
The term "Invasion" is a deliberate misrepresentation by vested interests - principally in the RW spectrum today - to cook up an excuse/justification for a genocide.
The Indian RW (and their allies in various groups) basically want to delegitimize any claims that Muslim & Christian Indians have to the land by birth while shoring up their claim of being the "original owners". The keenness to dismiss an "Aryan Invasion Theory" is merely part of an effort to legitimize their sense of ownership while declaring all Muslims and Christian invaders illegitimate. (again thanks to Paul Staniland for putting this out there so eloquently).
The RW studiously avoids the use of the "Migration" term. In their vocabulary "Aryan Migration" is redubbed "Aryan Invasion" - this is because they want to criminalize migration. Just as every Bangladeshi migrant in India is automatically labelled a terrorist by them and every Rohingya refugee is viewed as Jihadi in the making.
This is a terrifyingly misanthropic world view (not surprising when you consider their love of Hitler) but it is best if the sane people call this out where they see it.
Sane people should completely refrain from using the "Aryan Invasion" term and replace it with "Aryan Migration".
While it will not shift the vocabulary of those that seek to promote genocide, it will however allow us to recognize those genocidal intent easily.
And every little bit helps.
posted by maverick @ 6:02 AM
9 Comments:
Mav, let me play devils advocate. How exactly is Invasion NOT proved. All genetic data shows Upper Caste Hindus and Brahmins have R1a1 Y haplogroup and local mtDNA. This is consistent with invasion with previous males being bumped off and their females taken. Also All Indians are ANI/ASI admixed with ANI being higher in high castes(Punjabi peasant groups like Jatt Saini Kamboh gujjars being exception to it). If you look at it objectively AIT stands proved only issue is time frame of invasion.
boy howdy did this topic get a quick response.......
and nobody wants to acknowledge that black people first settled India either......
Oh Ralphy I have no issues with blacks or martians settling in India first. Even Dravidian were migrants.
not only did they settle India but also andamans, cambodia, southern china, philippines, and of course, micronesia. they are among the most ancient of people.
Dear Quantum Chaos,
Can one completely rule out this pattern of genetics from being due to a migration?
I don't think it can be ruled out.
If ANI/ASI women married Aryan migrants and over time their offspring emerged as dominant castes (as so many migrants often do after assimilation) - the observed pattern would be the same.
In the US today, a numbers of White Americans are a mix of Southern and Central European ancestry, this doesn't mean that Italy or Germany invaded the US - or that Italy invaded Germany.
Unless migration is ruled out completely, I feel the Invasion hypothesis is not on firm grounds.
There is no reason to doubt the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. It seems to become more factual as more evidence is uncovered.
The key scientific questions about that deal more with the reliability of the statistical evidence, but unless counter evidence of comparable statistical reliability is presented - there is no cause for real complaint.
This is the key problem with the Out of India theory IMHO - they don't have a shred of evidence to prove it.
I should be fair and note that when constructing political myths - you don't need evidence just faith.
And the Bhakts have more desire for faith than for rational thought.
(scurries back into the gas chamber...)
i note with admittedly mild amusement that syria blames the us for bombing one of its military positions in eastern syria. the us flatly denies it.
it is also interesting to note that the iraqi air force has an on going campaign against isis in that region. they have f-16's, su-25's, c-130's and drones. and an independent budget.
grin.......
turns out, it was israel.......the strike area is a long ways from israel and would involve in flight refueling......israel has promised to bomb iranian assets anywhere in syria........
Post a Comment
<< Home