Re: Indo-European studies
Quote:
superior horse warriors who introduced civilization across Eurasia.
I don't know if you were being serious or just using this as a statement of said German anthropologist, but the Indo-Europeans did not spread civilization across Eurasia, they settled in many areas sometimes overthrowing and absorbing and being absorbed by more advanced cultures (Indus Valley). Mostly however they just spread their language, people and beliefs, they were basically "barbarians", in that they were not a civilized/advanced society.
Quote:
"badly tanned Nordics" - I love it!! That is the truest statement I've read in a while.
I personally truly think we have skin color for a reason (such as where along the equator one's people lived and thus you might want to live) and we should live thus if we want everything to work properly, not earning cancer because we think it's cool to be something we cannot short, heavy people will not have a fun time in the desert where one should be tall and skinny, nor would tall and skinny people have fun on the cold steppe... it's science really...
If all had thought that way, we'd all still live in Africa... Also the whole reason for so many people speaking Indo-European (or Altaic or Semitic languages for that matter) is because of immigration/emmigration.
Also concerning "badly tanned Nordics"; Europeans who came to West Africa (during the age of exploration) were not known as white people, but red people... :laugh4:
Re: Indo-European studies
sorry, artavazd, I misinterpreted ~:doh: anyways, I hope I didn't come off harsh, because I just talk too much in general :yes: (obviously, I already have exceeded my limit for this thread)
I just really don't like that name Herman (no offense to those of you if you were born with that crappy name- my name is Jeremiah and that name blows too: "Jeremiah was a bullfrog! <duh duh duh>") especially in reference to Herman the German ~;) I just hate it... I totally don't understand how calling him Herman gives him anything, in fact, I think of him as a simpleton, weakling, or Joe Schmoe with that name... plus, Herman isn't even old Germanic, what were historians thinking? It's like calling Theodric => Teddy :grin:
randarkman, that's interesting/funny! redskins... i hope nobody in Africa was offended by the US baseball team ~:) hmm, I think Papa New Guinea calls Germans/Europeans redskins also, which is especially apt, since no white man has ever been devoid of pigmentation
OK, I promise to shut up and let other people actually have space on this thread
Re: Indo-European studies
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
Where did the Aryans come from that destroyed the Indus valley civilization? Also Sanskrit was the language used by early linguists when they saw similarities between it and english.
Ehhh, well, it is debated as to whether the Aryans even destroyed the Indus civ. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were abandoned, not destroyed, so the Aryan origin story might not be 100% accurate.
But yeah, generally, Proto-Indo-Europeans came from north of the Black Sea.
See the Urheimat Hypothesis and the Kurgan Hypothesis. Both of these are ideas for the origin and spread of Indo-European peoples.
Be careful about the term "Aryan". It isn't that it is politically incorrect, rather it has the potential to be misleading when utilized. And linguists can attest that language spreads differently from genetics, and that many people who speak an Indo-European tongue might not have even a droplet of "Aryan" blood in them.
Re: Indo-European studies
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodEmperorLeto
Ehhh, well, it is debated as to whether the Aryans even destroyed the Indus civ. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were abandoned, not destroyed, so the Aryan origin story might not be 100% accurate.
But yeah, generally, Proto-Indo-Europeans came from north of the Black Sea.
See the
Urheimat Hypothesis and the
Kurgan Hypothesis. Both of these are ideas for the origin and spread of Indo-European peoples.
Be careful about the term "Aryan". It isn't that it is politically incorrect, rather it has the potential to be misleading when utilized. And linguists can attest that language spreads differently from genetics, and that many people who speak an Indo-European tongue might not have even a droplet of "Aryan" blood in them.
There is also this theory http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftB...onicle120.html
I agree that language does not always have a connection with genetics, but it makes no sense to say that the ORIGINAL speakers did not have a cultural connection with eachother along side the language. For example, English in America. The original speakers of English who came from England did/do share genetic similarites, but today people of African, Ameridian, and other backgrounds speak English. The cultural connection alongside the genetic connection (there are genetic studies which show that the population of Armenia, and most of Iran have the genes which characterize the populations of Europe) can be seen when one studies the traditional folk culture of indo-eurpean peoples. The folk music, folksongs and folk tales do share suprising similarites from Ireland to Iran.
