| Original Message |
St George (no login)
Posted Nov 11, 2003 9:10 PM
Pakistan
You seem to a little to quick to conclude that the dna experiment provided no evidence whatsoever of the Aryan invasion. Well let's just look at some of the scientists (who I'm sure are not racists) quotes again.
Geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah says "there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago." He added, "when we look at the Y chromosome DNA, we see the lower castes are most similar to Asians, and the upper castes are more European than Asian."
I put it to you Pakistan, if it was the case of European dna being found in these Indian biological volunteers because India was used as a corridor between Africa and Europe, then why is it that it is only the upper caste Indians who are most similar to Europeans? This fits perfectly with what I have maintained all along.
Jorde then goes on to say "when we look at the different components within the upper
caste, the group with the greatest European similarity of all is the warrior class, the Kshatriya, who are still at the top of the Hindu castes, with the Brahmins."
Replying to your point that the cast system was legally abolished in India in the 1960's Jorde adds,
"People are very well aware of their caste membership. Noting that in some cities the housing is still arranged along caste lines. So one might argue, unfortunately so, that it (the caste system) does exist in people's minds."
In terms of who marries whom, the researchers described the Hindu caste system as "governing the mating practices of nearly one-sixth of the world's population (India's population being just over the one billion mark)"
Now Pakistan, there is absolutely nothing I have produced there that has been "taken out of context". Jorde (one of the leading geneticists involved in the project) certainly made no bones about there being an actual Aryan invasion of the Indus Valley.
You seem quite stuck on one or two comments made by Professor Michael Bamshad who also took part in the experiment. I assume that these are the quotes by him that you think enhances your argument.
"Our results should facilitate the deconstruction of racist barriers," said Bamshad. "However, racism is a much more complex issue than simply noting whether there are biological differences between groups of people."
There it is Pakistan, the jewel in your crown. Now let's anylise it for a moment. Am I mistaken or does ol' Bamshad actually admit that there are biological differences between groups of people? Whether or not he thinks "racism is a much more complex issue" is utterly irrelevant. He is a scientist. His job is to do his scientific research. Which it appears he has done commendably. His opinions on racism mean absolutely nothing. As far as I can see, he is no more qualified to talk on that subject than you or I am.
There is another quote from a B.V. Ravi Prasad, another member of the research team.
"It is possible that European migrants who reached India during or after the Indus Valley civilisation, mingled with the local people and eventually established their superiority over land and labour thus forming the higher castes."
Again Pakistan, further analysis reveals that it is the first three words here which are the most important. "It is possible." Repeat "IT IS POSSIBLE". All this is my friend, is this mans opinion on a theory that MIGHT have been possible. It is by no means substancial evidence. Nowhere near as concrete as the actual scientific proof that the biological dna tests produced.
As far as I can see, these are about the best quotes you have from these people or at least, they are the two you seem to use in your argument. You are quite welcome to produce more however, as I enjoy taking them apart. So we will let the reader make up his own mind as to whoever has taken these quotes out of context. Fair enough?
Now to the rest of your post. You say that in the modern world, people from all societies seem to produce more or less the same kind of output as whites. This argument is totally flawed. What about the third world? Why is it that such a tiny country such as Belgium for example, with a population of merely eleven million, has a bigger Gross National Product (annual wealth of a country) than all of the African nations put together (with the exception of South Africa which up until reletively recently was governed by whites)? Let's also bear in mind here that Africa has an enormous wealth of yet untapped resources. Please tell me why this is. You also mention the U.S.A. in your argument. I have personally travelled to this particular country many, many times and as far as I can see, it is about as intergrated as any other western country is. What I mean by this is YES, there is a diverse mix of people inhabiting the U.S.A. but it certainly isn't what I'd call intergrated. It is about 70 percent white and the remaining 30 percent (in the most part) live within their own, inward looking communities just as many immagrants do here in Britain. There are African-American communities, Asian communities, Hispanic communities, Chinese communities, Jewish communities etc. etc. Minority people by their own choice, live amoung their own racial group. All perfectly natural of course but not when it threatens the very survival of the European-American population and their traditional heritage.
You seem to greatly overstate the achievements of these groups of people. I think for the most, they have contributed enormously to the drugs and crime culture of the U.S.A. You seem to think most highly of these people but I can tell you now, if someone happened to drop you off right in the middle of one of the black ghetto's in that country, I wouldn't give you very good odds of getting out of there in one piece.
After all the advantages that black people have over white people in America (affirmative action, cheap housing and so on), they never seem to take full advantage of it. They still seem to stay at the bottom of the heap. I'm not saying that there arn't a few exceptions to the rule, but on the whole thats the way it is.
I again, look forward to your reply but could you please tell me how you stand on the principle of affirmative action or as we call it over here, positive discrimination.
Regards,
St George |
|
|