longshanks
Well-Known Member
Yeah thats right.
This is a great study!
- Thread starter anm
- Start date
Yeah thats right.
cha_indian
Active Member
@rajapraveen80
also africans who settled in the USA and South Indians Produce some great "Music".
I wonder if you all consider this as a proof they are related
Here is an interesting link
JOURNEY OF MANKIND - The Peopling of the World
music connection with race is quite interesting
RD Burman wasn't south indian nor african.
No disrespect to other races when I say africans and south Indians produce great music. Infact I appreciate all types of music, When it comes to music race doesn't matter, But It would be interesting to see if there is some kind of uniqueness to same race groups from different places regarding music or other art forms.
Regarding R D Burman his music was surely unique
Here is another interesting link of surname "burman"
Varma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
they were rulers of India and South east asia, and yes they are related to "Nairs" of South and "Rajus" of Andhra Pradesh". isn't life full of surprises ?
Regarding R D Burman his music was surely unique
Here is another interesting link of surname "burman"
Varma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
they were rulers of India and South east asia, and yes they are related to "Nairs" of South and "Rajus" of Andhra Pradesh". isn't life full of surprises ?
Jith77
Active Member
for those who are interested can read this:
Aryan Mystery: Romila Thapar's Interpretation
Aryan Mystery: Romila Thapar's Interpretation
Romila Thapar writes bullshit based on marxist ideology. Everything written by these bunch of Marxist historians over the last many decades is an elaborate perversion of rational discourse.
There have been repeated attempts by this bunch of historians to use Linguistic theory to attempt to prove certain historical circumstances and establish them as "facts" that strengthen the marxist viewpoint in a retrofit. However there is a cluster and constellation of tell tale evidence that point very strongly to everything that Romila argues against. What does a fossil expert do with bone fragments? He joins them for a best fit and discards the small pieces that don't clearly support the overall structure and pattern of the fossil. Likewise the much touted evidence based on linguistic theory needs to be discarded for the same reason.
The references to "nationalistic" historians is a dead give-away of the propaganda intent of the article. Arun Shourie called out and exposed their fraud in depth in his book "Eminent Historians - Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud". Please read that book before you jump in defense of these historians who created a paranoia about "nationalistic" historians.
To clarify my stance in brief - the Harappan site is correctly called Sindu-Saraswati. There is a constellation of evidences with lend much greater weight to support this as a credible theory, than there is to that single piece of "dried up bone" popularly known as "the evidence" provided by linguistic theory. The author is generally generating a lot of fog in that article with an elaborate pretense of rational discourse that is only designed to confuse the casual reader.
HTH
Regards
edit: PS - not that linguistic theory has any kind of strong proof either. Every where in Romila's article I see subtle attempts to mislead ... I cant bother completing it sorry.
Last edited:
Jith77
Active Member
Romila Thapar writes bullshit based on marxist ideology. Everything written by these bunch of Marxist historians over the last many decades is an elaborate perversion of rational discourse.
There have been repeated attempts by this bunch of historians to use Linguistic theory to attempt to prove certain historical circumstances and establish them as "facts" that strengthen the marxist viewpoint in a retrofit. However there is a cluster and constellation of tell tale evidence that point very strongly to everything that Romila argues against. What does a fossil expert do with bone fragments? He joins them for a best fit and discards the small pieces that don't clearly support the overall structure and pattern of the fossil. Likewise the much touted evidence based on linguistic theory needs to be discarded for the same reason.
The references to "nationalistic" historians is a dead give-away of the propaganda intent of the article. Arun Shourie called out and exposed their fraud in depth in his book "Eminent Historians - Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud". Please read that book before you jump in defense of these historians who created a paranoia about "nationalistic" historians.
To clarify my stance in brief - the Harappan site is correctly called Sindu-Saraswati. There is a constellation of evidences with lend much greater weight to support this as a credible theory, than there is to that single piece of "dried up bone" popularly known as "the evidence" provided by linguistic theory. The author is generally generating a lot of fog in that article with an elaborate pretense of rational discourse that is only designed to confuse the casual reader.
HTH
Regards
edit: PS - not that linguistic theory has any kind of strong proof either. Every where in Romila's article I see subtle attempts to mislead ... I cant bother completing it sorry.
1) romila thapar is against lingustic theory..there is no attempt to mislead(!!!!)..it clearly says that the linguistic theory is crap
2) i agree that she is a bore to read
3) she was among the first few to disown the aryan invasion theory. however, she was under fire from non academic circles for telling that early indians did eat meat and about hindu muslim relationship. it is obvious against whose interest it is and who will be benefit from making a deal out of it.
3) though Arun Shourie is a respected intellect, its obvious where his poliical interest lies..it is true that marxist historians did distort history with a bias (bias being trying the common man point of view), but much lesser than the british or the political think tanks like Shourie.
4) As to Romila thapar being a marxist historian am yet to come across a reason....we were pro russia and US before 91..and she belongs to that generation...just coz her viewpooints are not pro us doesnt mean she isnt credible
5) anything related to aryan theory is not absolute and one has to be suspicious of any account of it be it any prominant historian - it is always their view point. more so if the author is politically inclined
6)a bit off topic...other than the one by shourie, if there are any suggest read on the topic please recommend..its kind of difficult to find a credible (non political) and a good read( non romila thapar)
PS: ending of the article sums up point 5 better
"But let me just conclude with two brief sentences. What I tried to suggest to you first of all is that the Aryan question is a very complex question and I hope you are all absolutely staggered by the complexity and reeling under all the complexities that I have pointed out to you. So please do not take one version as "the" version. Always question every version, including mine. The second point that I want to emphasize is that I think as historians it is time now that we moved away from this century and a half old obsession with who were the Aryans, what was their origin, how do we identify them, who has descended from them. These are irrelevant questions. These are questions that are only important to political parties and political ideologies. The important question is what is this data that you have for reconstructing the early phases of Indian society and how does one proceed to do this reconstruction. I have tried to suggest one way in which this reconstruction can be carried out. I may be incorrect but I would like you to look at this period now in terms of a search for a historical reconstruction of the times."
Last edited:
Can you explain why you believe Arun Shourie is a political think tank who writes biased articles? Or is it what you believe simply because he happens to be a member of the BJP and somebody (the media?) told you that he is biased? Have you actually read any of his works or critiques of it? Unless you post credible data, I will conclude you are parroting propaganda yourself.
Read the same book I recommended earlier then tell me why it cannot be trusted. What holes do you find in his arguments? Otherwise again you will not achieve any sense of credibility. Talk hard facts about where Arun Shouries work is lacking please. Reference urls will do with relevant passages highlighted.
If you want me to return what I ask from you - the arguments are all there in the book.
Enjoy researching!!
Follow HiFiMART on Instagram for offers, deals and FREE giveaways!
