|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 1, 2010 10:48:51 GMT 3
I'm just curious really, does anyone know the full history of this specific term. When and where did it originate? Or if so, when did it become a popular theory?
I've noticed a rather troubling but common pattern in the past when it comes to Western steppe history where Indo-Europeans seem to be portrayed as more "civilised" "human" steppe folk compared to the "barbarian" "inhuman" Altaic folk. I also noticed striking similarities to the Indo-European theory to Hitler's own Aryan-master race theory, almost as if the Europeans went to the Germans after WW2 and said "no you are not superior, we are ALL superior" lol (Hence I ask for the WHENs)
Also isn't both Aryan/Indo-European considered a linguistic group officially? Then why are so many treating it like a racial/ethnic group, even broadcasted TV programs promoting them as ethnic groups, even authors taking it so seriously to the point of publishing books on "Race" such as Richard McCollugh. All this seems to be giving the vibe of Hitler's once "bogus" theory that was once condemned by all Europeans and now being accepted as 'science'.
Can someone please clarify all this? Or is it just me? I haven't been reading much for a long time due to personal responsibilities, so I can't clarify this myself.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Dec 1, 2010 15:23:00 GMT 3
It all started because Sir Williams Jones went to East India Company in 1783 and found a similarity between Sanskrit and Latin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_%28philologist%29Then they started to think that white people invaded India in the past and created a very advanced civilization there. (and I think thus creating a cast system in which white people were superior than people who are not white) This also led to the idea that languages that are not related to "Indo-European languages were isolated languages and they were created on their own without being related to any other language in the world. (like Etruscan) Today Indo-European civilization theory have turned into a Indo-European languages theory "probably" because racism is no longer cool like it was a few hundred years ago. Today whenever a Kurgan is found with a white person and some advanced technology, that nation is called a nation who spoke an Indo-European language. (Like the Scythians with their GoldenMan with a gold woven dress) (or the Tocharians in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region who probably built the Turpan Irrigration system) That's what I know about this subject. If I have some error, I would be glad someone with more knowledge pointed it out.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 1, 2010 18:31:07 GMT 3
While there may be very reasonable and justified objections to the use of the IE theory in recent years (I can't comment on this at the moment), I would like to point out that ancalimon is a firm believer in a western conspiracy trying to hide the truth:
- that proto turks are the fathers of civilization and wicked Nazi Europeans stole their culture and call it IndoEuropean theory. Not that I'm saying he's outright lying all the time, just that his statements should be taken with a bit of skepticism. (and if possible double checked)
|
|
|
Post by jamyangnorbu on Dec 1, 2010 20:00:50 GMT 3
There is a thorough summation of the linguistic and archaeological evidence published in a recent work titled, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern WorldThe concept of race has been thoroughly debunked academically, and any presentation of the Indo-European theory based on race can be ignored as shoddy academics. The proposed spread of the Indo-european languages and cultural practices was a mix of migration, raids, conquests, and assimilation of perceived prestige language and practice.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 1, 2010 21:22:02 GMT 3
I'm reading that actually, it's a tough read, but seems very up to date. The comments and reviews on Amazon are also worth reading.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 2, 2010 0:00:43 GMT 3
merlkirWhere did he post that? O.O jamyangnorbuI don't understand, the concept of race is "officially" debunked sure, but it's everywhere. Hell some geneticists even probed those of my people with colored hair/eyes and considered us descendants of ancient Indo-Europeans automatically (wait what? where's the linguistics if one is to use the term IE?? What's this racialist crap? etc etc) despite genetic drift without European interference. If the IE theory is supposed to be completely linguistical then since when did race come into it? It's everywhere you look from TV shows, to books, to websites, even to people, to the point it's considered a "fact" that IE/Aryan is a race among the masses. It's become mainstream belief and it's rather interesting how TV hosts and "experts", authors who quote the work of experts in anthropology, genetics, linguistics, even all my Euro mates... they all use IE as a race. Except perhaps your link but I've never read that one. Meh I'm really confused with this world. One voice seems to be politically correct and says "Race is debunked, here is the science to prove we're all human beings" while a thousand more says "My race is this and that, your race is this and that, and I'm better then you and here is the science to prove why I am entitled to privileges and you're not" ;D ancalimonInteresting... started from the colonial era you say? All the way BACK then? I'll think on this later, first thing in the morning thinking is not good... Anyways I've also noticed this strong bias as can be expected really. It just strikes me as odd as many experts can't seem to be able to accept a universal truth - is IE supposed to be a racial or a linguistic group... meh, folks should stop scrambling my brain like an egg
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 2, 2010 0:21:15 GMT 3
Basically any thread started by him in this subforum is one giant mess and ends up being locked after we can't take it anymore. forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/board,43.0.html It's easier for non-experts to imagine the IE people if you tell them they were their ancestors. Logically they see them looking like themselves. I think looking through the genome and noticing physical traits is not wrong, appearance can tell us a lot about a possible history of a population. What's wrong (obviously) is coming to any conlusions from that, which relate to a "quality" of said population, or "purity".
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 2, 2010 0:30:21 GMT 3
Well... then it seems nonetheless the IE linguistic theory has successfully but unintentionally misguided a ton of folks into thinking of IE as a race... Bah, think I'll let my Euro mates believe what they want, and they're alright despite that (they aren't arrogant like many others, and very respectful). Ignorance is bliss. BTW, you ALL play M&B?
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 2, 2010 0:42:41 GMT 3
BTW, you ALL play M&B? we ALL? Europeans? I don't think all Europeans play MaB. I do.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 2, 2010 0:47:45 GMT 3
Haha nah I meant you guys, I'm glad this little indie game is bringing new folks into steppe history nonetheless =) I have it on my work computer where I play from 2-4 (normally my nap time) heh since it's not busy at my restaurant during those hours. None of my mates whether Euro, Anglo, Asian, or Leb play it
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 2, 2010 0:54:42 GMT 3
It's a popular game, I got many of my friends into it.
I actually found the steppe forum while looking for paintings and drawings of historical warriors. I'm an illustrator and I'd love to do historical illustration as well (beside fantasy stuff I'm already doing), so I'm building my image gallery of historical illustration.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Dec 2, 2010 1:01:51 GMT 3
@subu'atai: I did play it for a while. Unfortunately I no longer can due to my ongoing educations and limited time. One of the best games I've played. It will definitely become much better in the future.
I think IE linguistic theory is a covered up IE civilization theory, simply because it's the basis of this theory and it started without taking Altaic languages and religions influence on Indian languages into consideration.
My idea which I defend strongly is that there is definitely no race concept in Turkic culture which is different than European cultures. I defend that words in Turkish got mixed up and many of them meant the same things.
I have written this before but I strongly think that IRKDAŞ (people belonging to same race) and ARKADAŞ (friend - people who protect each others back) are the same and they are URUKDAŞ (people belonging in the same place) So Turkic culture saw "RACE" as people living together and protecting each others life and property and honor. It is not uncommon to find people who looked European in Kurgans. This doesn't make them European property in my opinion. By saying European I don't mean people who are from Europe. I mean belonging to European mentality.
By this I mean there is no Turkic race and Turks don't belong to any race because they didn't differentiate races and they never saw one as superior or different expect their friends.
When Turks are asked the question "What is your race?" They get confused, angry and proud and answer "Turk?" This was tested on many people on the street by me and more than 80 percent gave the same answer. 4 of them answered "white", 5 of them answered "Muslim" and One answered Caucasian. This clearly shows even today Turks in Turkey are not aware of any race concept because there is no Turkic race.
"Turk" is an upper identity with a pint of jingoism just like "American". There are many races and ethnics in it and those people think they are the same race. The reason fore this should be researched.
That's my argument and I wrote it simply because I had to answer to Merlkir informing you about my naughty behavior. That's all I'm going to write about this subject and people are free to agree with my ascertainment or not.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 2, 2010 1:11:32 GMT 3
I find it amusing you're somehow offended if we for instance call Scythians Indo European, but then you go and sweepingly call EVERYONE a Turk. How this turkishness is defined, what evidence you have for everyone falling into this cathegory, how this turkishness is related to modern Turks, that is not exactly clear. Yet you simply know this is true. I especially liked how everyone buried with a horse is a Tengriist, that was a good one.
(and I'm sorry I annoy you in two places at once, I just started reading this forum a bit more recently and I really like it here.)
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Dec 2, 2010 1:26:19 GMT 3
I find it amusing you're somehow offended if we for instance call Scythians Indo European, but then you go and sweepingly call EVERYONE a Turk. How this turkishness is defined, what evidence you have for everyone falling into this cathegory, how this turkishness is related to modern Turks, that is not exactly clear. Yet you simply know this is true. I especially liked how everyone buried with a horse is a Tengriist, that was a good one. (and I'm sorry I annoy you in two places at once, I just started reading this forum a bit more recently and I really like it here.) I don't call everyone Turks. I despise people who say so. I only suspect that some people around the world are related to Turks and show the leads I found leading me to that idea to people. There is no proof as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 2, 2010 1:35:19 GMT 3
ancalimon: And yet again, you show complete misunderstanding of the IE theory. I have nothing else to advice - learn about the IE theory, try to understand what it means. Not what Kazım Mirşan or other conspiracy theorists tell you. merlkir: No you DEFINITELY DON'T KNOW how it all started. I have a complete understanding. *cough*no proof as of yet, but you have a complete understanding*cough*
|
|