CaptainRon

I AM IN NO BLOODY WAY DENYING THAT PERIZAAD IS INDIAN! I'M MERELY MENTIONING HER ETHNICITY! You may not know this but there is a separate community of Zoroastrians in India distinct from the Parsis called the Iranis. They are not Iranians, but are descendants of more recent immigrants from Persia to India. They are called Irani to distinguish them from the other group. They are Indian but their names are closer to Iranian names or are just Irani. Zorabian is an etymologically Dari name, not Parsi, so she is an Indian Irani zoroastrian. Usually, to keep the story short, they group themselves with Parsis erroneously, but they are ulitmately of a different history. I'm not calling her Iranian as in modern Iranian, but as in an Indian zoroastrian of a different group from the Parsis. Click on bloody Irani link if you want proof. Dont be such an ignorant fool and call me Iranian. I'm Pakistani, which is more or less the same as Indian ethnically, culturally, historically and linguistically (to a certain extent). Afghan Historian 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to label her according to her proper Indian group, however, as the Iranis are bound to become indistinguishable from Parsis anyway, I guess it's no harm calling her Parsi. Afghan Historian 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is pretty much how I see it. There was an Indo-European homeland originally in the Eurasian steppes some 6,000 years ago that began to split, due to migratory patterns of people at the time, or due to disease, overpopulation or some other random reason. Over some thousand years, a branch of the Indo-Europeans that arrived in Afghanistan were the Indo-Iranians, or the Aryans. They split in two and "migrated" not invaded to their present day homes of India and Iran. I dont think the (Indo-Iranian population that came to be called Aryans in India really invaded as they werent so much conquering armies but family groups looking for land to settle down on and herd their cattle and tend livestock. These people had some parent culture of their own which involved antecessor gods to Indra, Varuna, Agni, Mithra, etc. These gods became the latter and the Indo-Iranian dialect they spoke mutated by contact with the Dravidians to form the Vedic Sanskrit. Likewise they initially clashed with the local Dravidians and made Caste to keep apart from them. However, as time went on, and educated Dravidians made themselves apparent to the Aryans, the Aryans began to borrow extensively from their precedents in order to adapt to the South Asian geography. They borrowed civilization, religious rituals, and much of the cultural and religious ideas of the Dravidians to form what we now know as Sanatana Dharma, or Hinduism. Their learning of agriculture and city life from the civilized dark-skinned Dravidians led to the rise of civilization and kingdoms among the different Aryan tribes that settled down. Their civilization was pretty much what they borrowed from the Dravidians, plus their own ideas, mixed in to form something new and unique to the subcontinent. They also began to marry extensively with the Dravidians, leading to most South Asians being of indigenous stock maternally (hence the lack of invading genes for the past 10000 years, cited by people against AIT) while paternal genes reveal traces of Eurasian invaders. Women of either race were very mobile in the caste system initially. A Dravidian woman who married an Aryan Brahmin man would have Brahmin children, while an Aryan woman who married a Shudra or Untouchable Dravidian man would have low caste children. There were also cases where Dravidians like law giver Manu rose to become the Aryan law giver, while Aryan tribes such as the Parthians, Scythians, Persians, Kambojas] and distant IE cousins the Greeks were demoted to Shudra and non-Aryan status. Later on this would stop, but the mixed blood was permanent in all classes. Overall, Hindu civilization is indigenous to India, formed out of the mix of Invading Aryan culture with that of the local Dravidian culture. In a sense, Indian civilization began the way many other ones do. An invading class destroy previous culture, and adapt aspects of previous culture to form new one (Goths and Rome, Babylonians and Sumer, Hyskos and Egypt, Mongols and China, Persian Aryans and Elamites, Alexander's Greeks and Persian Aryans, etc.) The Aryans migrated, but they didnt "bring Vedic culture" with them, as many racist Europeans utilized the theory to say so. They came as migrants and brought a parent culture of their own that fused with the local culture to form a civilization, both new and unique to South Asia. After all, if you look at Hinduism as it is now, most of it comes from the local Dravidians. Shiva and Krishna, Reincarnation and karma, yoga, all the greatest aspects of the faith are of native, dark-skinned Dravidian origin, as well as rice, cities, etc. And, the dravidian culture that preceded it was and is still regarded by most scholars around the world as one of the world's first advanced civilizations. And look how much of it still lives on in India/Pakistan today, as opposed to how much of their Egyptian and Sumerian counterparts survived. And besides, the people are bedrock native to this place from the first migrations out of Africa. A last note as well, the term Aryan etymologically meant "Noble" but the tribes, in my mind, were vain enough to see themselves as noble in comparison and called themselves "Aryas" or noble ones or noble race. Hope that helps. A bientot! Afghan Historian 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have told me nothing new Captain Ron. I know Dravidians are Caucasoids. The thing is, however, race alone does not make for separate ethnicity. There is also language. Dravidian languages have been accepted by most as distinct and unrelated to Indo-Aryan ones, except for influences from Sanskrit and vice versa. Just because Dravidians are Caucasoids, doesnt make them same with the Aryans. Caucasoid and Aryan are not the same. Dravidians were previously settled Caucasoids of Mediterranean type. Aryans were later migrants, and as dna shows, there was an introduction of fresh Eurasian genes into an already dominant Caucasoid population some 3000 years ago. Also, the Rig Veda is no longer THE OLDEST (the caps are a stress, not me yelling at you) Indo-European record in the world. A Hittite document now proves to be at least 200-300 years older. Nevertheless, it is wise to use archaeology and genetics over religious scriptures made by a form of record keeping notorious for leaving many things out and being somewhat incomplete. It is like using the Bible or the Quran. Their spiritual messages are true for whoever follows them, but their ideas regarding history should be taken with extreme caution, if not at all. Genetic studies of the human race show that there was a general expansion of people from Eurasia some 3000 years ago. Also, the Max Mueller theory defends Central Asia (Turkestan) as the home, whereas I defend what most modern scholars defend, Eurasia (souther Russia/Siberia). Also, the Max Mueller theory treats it as an invasion of superior peoples, whereas I (and most other academics) see it as a migration of Eurasians into the subcontinent whose languages spread past their genes to certain areas (ie: Sri Lanka). Anyway, Dravidians were Caucasoids who in the course of settlement, got dark-skinned via suntan, but nevertheless were the natives of the land, and the caste system put them in the bottom as the helpless conquered natives (although much more civilized than migrants) who should serve the victorious foreign migrants (as historically most intruders see themselves when first coming to an already populated land) but eventually worked their way back up the system and soaked up the Aryans to a certain extent to their civilization until both mixed to form a different people in North India and racial distinctions became somewhat blurred. Nevertheless they became more or less the same people, same racial type, the languages of the foreigners became dominant in North India but the religion fused mostly local religious customs with Aryan ideas to form something new and unique to the subcontinent. Also, with regards to Bengalis not following dravidian customs, I believe the mother goddes Kali is worshipped there. I think she is of Dravidian origin, isnt she? Overall, though, I do agree with one point many modern Indian historians who are pushing this new idear are trying to make, people overemphasize Aryan vs Dravidian over theology. I dont think it should really matter that some of the founders of South Asian civiization and Hinduism were migrants from elsewhere. The basic point is, the religion as it is, is native to the subcontinent, and as long as it's central message means something to people, the identity and background of its founders shouldnt really matter. Overall, all these "foreign" races who came to South Asia, Aryans, Persians, Kambojas, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans, Parthians, Bactrians, Hepthalites, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, Baloch, Mughals, Portuguese, and British (Anglo-Indians) all became mixed up and formed a distinct set of peoples in this region, unique to it and South Asia is home to every one of these people. Afghan Historian 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Aryan/Dravidian separate race thing is a load of garbage. (http://www.uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf) And if Afghan Historian is Pakistani that might show a bit of POV as he wants to discredit Hindu culture.Bakaman%% 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC) And if this Aryan Invasion was true why do all Indians look the same? Why are there no holy Hindu sites to the west of greater India? (Captainron, this is aimed at the Afghan person) Bakaman%% 21:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:InfoBeans Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply