3rd August 2013
The original “Aryans” were from Abyssinia, the people with “frightful shapes” (Dayanand Saraswati)
Over the last few days I've been studying the origins of racism, which has two key drivers: (a) Social Darwinism (or eugenics) and (b) Aryan race theories. Both, by the way are collectivist ideas and ignore the individual while glorifying the "race" or "society".
These two drivers overlap considerably, with one justifying the other. There is apparently a "pyramid" of races, with Aryans at the top.
I don't "believe" in race. No biologist worth his salt believes in race. There is simply no way to identify a "race" at the biological level.
But the Aryan idea is the most bogus of all. There is no proof whatsoever. Only assertions.
If I'm to belive in the "Aryans" I might as well believe in Adam and Eve. Or Noah. Or the tooth fairy. Just having something/someone referred in ancient scriptures is NO proof. We need archaeolgical and biological evidence. We need also to understand issues in the context of OTHER human migrations/ activities.
With the Aryan "race" theory nothing adds up. I wonder why "historians" haven't been able to see through this sham concept till now.
SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT THERE WERE NO ARYANS
Curiosity piqued, I've searched a bit and found that just a few years ago a scientific study has established that there is NO evidence of any "Aryans" coming from outside to India. Mythological people don't come or go, as expected.
"Our study clearly shows that there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago," said Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, who led the research team, which included scientists from the University of Tartu, Estonia, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai and Banaras Hindu University. [Source]
But that's NOT good enough, in my view. It is CERTAIN that humans have been coming in and out of India for tens of thousands of years.
We must not mix "Aryan" migration with REAL migration, which HAS been taking place. India falls on a major route of migrations. From here, people have gone to Australia, for instance, 40-50,000 years ago. So India has clearly had a LOT of migrations. Some big, some small. Mostly very small.
LANGUAGE commonalities across the world are further proof of migrations from Africa (apart from DNA). The non-existence of an "Aryan" "race" doesn't mean that there was no sharing of langauge (or ideas).
But small migrations probably made the biggest difference. The fact that India's pre-history is consistent with the world's pre-history (stone/bronze/iron age) is proof that all kinds of ideas were being shared with India (or being invented in India) in ancient times. It only takes one or two people to share ideas. Big migrations are not a necessary requirement for the advancement of mankind.
Further, once innovation occurs, it generates a further impetus and new innovations are motivated.
NS Rajaram notes that this idea has not yet died out: "While avoiding overtly racial terms, scholars in disciplines like Indo-European Studies continue to uphold scientifically discredited and historically disgraced theories built around the Aryan myth." [Source]
Max Muller himself supposedly made clear that the Aryans are not a "race", just a linguist classification:
"I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians…To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." [Source]
However, I suspect Max Muller didn't do enough, particularly because he spoke of the 'invasion' which meant a superior people conquering an inferior one.
The following are confirmed facts:
1) India (like most other parts of the world) has had primary migrations from North Africa and secondary migrations from elsewhere (primarily middle East) for tens of thousands of years.
2) The ultimate Indian (and "Hindu") is an African great-great- grand mother. If Hindus want to find their roots, they'd better go to North Africa to worship their ancestors – regardless of Dayanand Saraswati's insult.
3) There are significant commonalities in languages across most parts of the world – at least between Europe and India.
In itself the ‘Indo-European’ idea of languages was indeed a hugely important discovery. According to one modern anthropologist, it ‘represents, perhaps, the greatest modern intellectual achievement in the humanities'. The problem was in the spread of Aryanism, initially to history and anthropology, where scientific racism was used not simply to analyse structure in language but to explain a highly racialised ‘world history’. [Source: ‘No such race’: Finnegans Wake and the Aryan myth pp. 14-41 ]
4) There is a very good chance that Indian culture was indigenous, BUT supported by minor migrations (this is a two way street, with Indian migrants influencing others, as well).
5) Modern humans have lived in India for at least 50,000 years.
6) Indians were meat eaters, including BEEF eaters (shocking to some!) just like all other humans across the world. In particular, Indus Valley Civilisation was a MAJOR beef/meat eating civilisation.
The rest – about "Aryans", about the fact that Indians didn't eat beef, is a myth.
This criticism perhaps by a Chinese is good:http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/15956-the-aryan-myth-and-hindu-nationalism/
I haven't read the following but may be worth reading: