[Political Interest]

Having looked at the theory of the "Aryan" invasion of Europe, that is that a group speaking an Indo-European language known as the Aryans invaded Europe and conquered the Old European peoples, I have wondered about the origins of the peoples of Europe. Apparently this theory posits that these invaders mixed with the native European peoples. Does this mean therefore that Russians, Germans, French, English, Irish and Italians etc are all related? Apparently, there exist in Europe pre-Indo-European peoples that resisted the invasions and have managed to keep their cultures intact such as the Basque. The theory also suggests that the Indo-European peoples of Europe have a link to the Indo-European speaking peoples of South Asia.

The confusion I have encountered is that people raise the valid point that race and language are not always tied together. For example, in many countries they speak English but have no genetic links to the English people. In the same way, what is to say that just because the Europeans all speak an Indo-European language, that they are not completely genetically different? In such a case, how do we know the origins of the European peoples? Any alternative theories or suggestions would be welcome.

Therefore, are Europeans, such as Germanic speakers, Slavic speakers, Baltics and Romance speaking peoples related, or are they simply sharing a common Indo-European language? If the latter, where do they come from and are they related in any sense?

[Suska]

Everyone is related.

If you want a more detailed story take a box full of marbles, add larger objects to create obstacles and pockets and shake.

[Political Interest]

True, all human beings are related, but we are split into different tribes and what not.

[Suska]

...Follow that line of thought...

we split into tribes that combined into tribes that split into tribes that.. 200 thousand years later... It's difficult to follow.

[Political Interest]

Very true. How then do we know who we are?

[Suska]

You in particular would be confused. It's largely a matter of sexual attraction despite your gilding of the matter.

edited to clarify this point : We want to be around our people partly just because we like our people's women

If I had to make some guess I would say that the farther back you go the more you'd find variety of morphology, which is not to suggest lineage, but mutation. What we call Cro-Magnon would not have been a distinct race so much as a different strategy's impact on physiology. So we probably come out of a soup of types and gradually became clearly grouped racially according to ecosystem.

Out of this we developed tribal deity, very recently like 10,000 years ago. These tribes fought back and forth for thousands of years, even moved from their ecosystem. As history begins we can see some fairly clear racial types and the most isolated are the clearest; Aborigines and Scandanavians for example. Now we are really talking about tribes because these types consist of not only a clear racial type but also a distinct culture. But even in the short span of history Viking's became Normans, learned French and then became monarchs of England.

The reason I react like this is partly because of your specific case of Steppes horsemen. There are still legends around, for instance the Scythian, who we think of as Caucasians with a classic Mongolian lifestyle, but it's a very blurry picture. The Georgian will no doubt claim to be the source of Caucasians, but even that isn't clear. The term Aryan is difficult to trace back but could be Harrapan or one Indian caste as opposed to the pre-Aryan forest people of India.

How then do we know who we are?

Americans have a special problem with this, so much of our lineage has been disconnected. In fact, most people are from peasant stock and it's no wonder - such things were passed down orally if at all. A more important question would be who do you want to be? You've answered that - if I understand the basics of your story, a Caucasian Muslim? Well, there will probably be a lot more of that sort of thing, unless we can devise some sort of syncretic philosophy that unifies us. One problem is that for example Islam is not just a philosophy, but very powerfully it has a tribal deity, meaning a God that's... well... There are some definitions to know here...

Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but worship of only one of them.

Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones.

So a tribal deity with a system of Monolatry absolutely refuses other deities of other cultures. It's been a grounds for war for thousands of years.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but maybe this stuff gives you something to think about. In short you aren't your lineage, it's a creative process, and looking to be proud of where you come from will lead you to stare at inkblots and you'll wind up like Zyx and Hitler, making shit up... And probably if we knew the whole story it would not be something to be very proud of.

[Political Interest]

Out of this we developed tribal deity, very recently like 10,000 years ago. These tribes fought back and forth for thousands of years, even moved from their ecosystem. As history begins we can see some fairly clear racial types and the most isolated are the clearest; Aborigines and Scandanavians for example. Now we are really talking about tribes because these types consist of not only a clear racial type but also a distinct culture. But even in the short span of history Viking's became Normans, learned French and then became monarchs of England.

You do then concede that there are different ethnicities and identities? The basis of the Opening Post was not some sort of nationalism, its all just interest and wanting to know these things.

The reason I react like this is partly because of your specific case of Steppes horsemen. There are still legends around, for instance the Scythian, who we think of as Caucasians with a classic Mongolian lifestyle, but it's a very blurry picture. The Georgian will no doubt claim to be the source of Caucasians, but even that isn't clear. The term Aryan is difficult to trace back but could be Harrapan or one Indian caste as opposed to the pre-Aryan forest people of India.

This is true, this term Aryan in my view creates unnecessary trouble. The points is not who is "Aryan", whatever that may constitute, rather it is to see who is related to who. Also because of history in the West it carries immense baggage in a modern day context. What should be asked is if there is a unifying factor between the Indo-European language groups, that is one on the basis of genetics, or is it simply a common linguistic heritage?

And probably if we knew the whole story it would not be something to be very proud of.

Indeed, we are not our lineage. But what is wrong with wanting to know our backgrounds? I am no nationalist, just interested in history, peoples, migrations and cultures.

[Zyx]

I am no nationalist, just interested in history, peoples, migrations and cultures.

Suska is anti-history. He believes that history divides, though history truly inspires.

[Suska]

You do then concede that there are different ethnicities and identities? The basis of the Opening Post was not some sort of nationalism, its all just interest and wanting to know these things.

Yes, you're right I may have sensed some effort to develop a nationalistic rationale. yes there are obviously ethnicities and ethnic identities. In general they are blurry and based on very blurry and highly selective memory. And again, it is a creative process, so the important thing to me is not what happened but what do you want to happen.

What should be asked is if there is a unifying factor between the Indo-European language groups, that is one on the basis of genetics, or is it simply a common linguistic heritage?

Like I said there's been a lot of back and forth and distinct heritage is nearly always a matter of isolation. In this case probably Aryans were a highly successful tribe or set of tribes with the majority of the remaining Neanderthal blood.

Indeed, we are not our lineage. But what is wrong with wanting to know our backgrounds? I am no nationalist, just interested in history, peoples, migrations and cultures.

Right, no I agree. I consider myself European for want of knowing anything specific. I'm probably Scottish-Italian, but I feel like my heritage is Christiandom, by which I mean that that is what I have to work with and reform or celebrate. But the origin of European tribes is complex and difficult to see and in the end irrelevant as a personal matter, by far the mix of peoples that Europe came from in pre-history is not as important as the obvious history... And really... What I look like.

He believes that history divides,

Obviously it does Zyx. In the hands of someone with a victim complex like yours.

[Zyx]

Obviously it does Zyx. In the hands of someone with a victim complex like yours.

What victim complex? I uncover history--what's so victim-based about that?

[Suska]

lol. This is ridiculous Zyx. When I criticized you for removing yourself from the real fight you came back with, "why do you hate blacks" You want to be treated like a victim, and you want to rationalize it - not even by the more plausible idea that slavery and segregation left a taint, but the idea that you originate from a great empire that failed so badly it lost it's memory - and this is some racial conspiracy. I guarantee when everyone fights everyone someone will lose, but we don't really know the specifics. For sure Africa is not a racial designation, your people still genocide each other. Want to be proud of your actual people? be a great American.

[Zyx]

You want to be treated like a victim

You misread. I wanted to know why you were so hostile. I say it in the other thread, but you know full well that I've always been a good and honest person. You know that I've always been analytical and discerning. My question is why would you are you so hostile?

the idea that you originate from a great empire that failed so badly it lost it's memory - and this is some racial conspiracy.

Suska, from where are you?

They blew the noses off of the Sphinx, yet all of their records let you know that the Sphinx looked like Negroes (attached to Lions.)

I'm not saying anything new. I'm telling you "what was erased."

This is the start of only the second century of all of history to claim that the Ancient Egyptians weren't Black.

I'm not being ridiculous here--I'm saying "Wake up!"

be a great American.

The Americans are dead.

One should not be nationalist--look at your foolishness.

[Suska]

lets confine this to the other thread

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=123710&p=13517480#p13517480

[Ombrageux]

The Indo-European peoples, which is to say all "Whites" of Europe minus the Finns, Hungarians and Basques, share a common origin in India.

[Suska]

Indo-Europeans is a language, also that's not my understanding.

[Kynaston+1]

The geneticist Oppenheimer's findings are that the majority of people everywhere in Britain show a genetic heritage that relates them to the Basques, their ancestors having moved north as the ice retreated, and I'd guess that the majority almost everywhere in the world is descended from the original population, with some limited admixture (Oppenheimer suggests that perhaps 5% of the current British population is of 'Anglo-Saxon' descent). I've heard it argued, though on what grounds I never discovered, that 67% of the Palestinians share a genetic heritage with the people of the Old Testament, whereas for the descendants of converts, the Sephardim and the Azkhenazim, the figures are 17% and 15% respectively. One theory about Indo-European speech is certainly that it spread west from Anatolia with agriculture. The old racial massacre stuff is looking a bit thin of late: I think we need to keep in mind that when conquerors take over and kill or drive out 'everybody; they mean, as we might say, 'anyone who WAS anybody' - i.e. the top 5% or so.

[Political Interest]

So there is no link between Europeans, its only a linguistic common heritage?

[Kynaston+1]

Political Interest. 'So there is no link between Europeans, its only a linguistic common heritage?'

I think that Oppenheimer says there were two 'ice-refuges' or whatever he called them, from which people moved back into Europe after the Ice Age - the Basque country and the Caucasus - so presumably Europeans are mostly a mixture of the two, the mix varying from east to west.

[geb]

I think that Oppenheimer says there were two 'ice-refuges' or whatever he called them, from which people moved back into Europe after the Ice Age - the Basque country and the Caucasus - so presumably Europeans are mostly a mixture of the two, the mix varying from east to west.

Here.

[Amanita]

The Indo-European peoples, which is to say all "Whites" of Europe minus the Finns, Hungarians and Basques, share a common origin in India.

India? I think that theory was advanced by a couple of enthusiastic Orientalists in the late 19th century but got dismissed quickly. The general consensus nowadays is that Indo-European culture spread from the Pontic Steppe (Kurgan/Pit Grave/Yamna Cultures) in successive waves.

Additionally, modern-day Europeans are mainly a concoction of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, so care must be taken not to overemphasize the biological imprint of Indo-European expansion, unless one argues that Neolithic farmers were responsible for spreading Indo-European language, as some archaeologists like Renfrew do.