The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[Chthon]

Wasn't this thread originally about some hill tribe in Pakistan? How did it go so far off topic (and why did it require ten pages of discussion)?

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by SnakeEyes

There has never been a direct and pure adoption of Christianity in Europe; the old ways and beliefs were never completely abolished to begin with, and the actual theology and growth of Christianity post-Palestine/Israel was rooted in myriad waves and layers of Pagan philosophy and culture (first and foremost gnosticism and all the stuff that went into and fed gnosticism, but also revivals of traditions from Mesopotamia and Greece later on). .

Hell just look at Scandinavia today, they are very secular and pagan The whole ****l scene there is a backlash against Christianity.

[DrSatanDracula]

Snakeeyes:

Clarify this for me- do you mean genetically or linguistically? Linguistically there is no argument. The reconstruction of PIE is the single greatest and most proven theory in the history of Linguistics, anyone who argues that the model might not be true is a complete moron.

I mean both. Linguistically, certainly. Genetically, not as strong, but almost as much.

But if you mean genetically, I'd be more careful. More likely to be Caucasoid, sure, but to be of the same ethnicity/have the same ancient ancestors, not so much. Persians and Chinese probably saw a lot more of each other than Persians and Irish did, and in Western Europe IE speakers came into lands that were already occupied by earlier settlers. We know this from genetic evidence in the British Isles (it's the subject of the book Vikings, Saxons and Celts), and from Archaeological evidence in Greece and Anatolia. In the North it stares us in the face; Finns and Lapps still exist in the same lands Germanic peoples hit up three thousand years ago. And the tricky thing for the ethnicity argument is that all these peoples were generally of the Caucasoid type, with some small variations. Throw in super family theories like Nostradic and you have even more problems (this is a theory that suggests PIE, Altaic and Finno-Ugric were originally one language).

I base my argument along the y-chromosmone phenotypes most common in Europe and amongst Persian (I.E. non-ARabic or Turkic) Iranians. Namely, R1A1, R1b, and I. This strongly suggests that at least on the paternal side, there was a people who spread alongside the Indo-European languages and civilizations. It is not as strong, again, as the linguistic ties, but it paints a very convincing picture.

We also must speak of the religious connections. Iranian, Hindu, Germanic, Greco-Roman, and Celtic divinities share cognates and loose placements with one another. Examples: Aesir (Germanic), Asura (Sanskrit), and Ahura (Persian). Zeus (Greek), Dyeus Pita (Sanskrit), Tiwaaz/Tyr (Germanic).

It is actually qutie reasonable to assume that PIE and Finno-Ugric and Altaic have a common root even further back, although I am not aware of enough studies that prove that consistantly. But then we'd be getting back to the tens of thousands of years prior, as opposed to the last 6,000 or so.

[HeavyD99]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Heavyd99:

I am not affirming that Islam is a religion of ceaseless conquerors of all khafirs. But they are generally intolerant and living in a slavish state of dhimmitude is not exactly what I call "peace".

I would not use the term "slavish" state, you have to remember the various rights the Kalash are granted by paying the annual jizya tax:

1. They're exempted from paying the annual Zakat tax which is required for Muslims to pay. The Zakat tax is binding on property/income level unlike the Jizya which is a flate rate. So in many cases, the Jizya tax is equal to if not lower than the rate many of the wealthier Muslims are paying for Zakat in the Tribal areas region.

2. It exempts them from military service and still grants them protection from the state (I believe they're under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan not sure though)

3. Allows them to freely practice their religion, so long as they do not prevent their own people from converting to Islam. That is why the Muslim converts of the Kalash tribe are still living amongst them in the same villages.

[HeavyD99]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Heavyd99:

I am not affirming that Islam is a religion of ceaseless conquerors of all khafirs. But they are generally intolerant and living in a slavish state of dhimmitude is not exactly what I call "peace".

I would not use the term "slavish" state, you have to remember the various rights the Kalash are granted by paying the annual jizya tax:

1. They're exempted from paying the annual Zakat tax which is required for Muslims to pay. The Zakat tax is binding on property/income level unlike the Jizya which is a flate rate. So in many cases, the Jizya tax is equal to if not lower than the rate many of the wealthier Muslims are paying for Zakat in the Tribal areas region.

2. It exempts them from military service and still grants them protection from the state (I believe they're under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan not sure though)

3. Allows them to freely practice their religion, so long as they do not prevent their own people from converting to Islam. That is why the Muslim converts of the Kalash tribe are still living amongst them in the same villages.

[CoreCanyon]

the girl and old woman at the top of the article have beautiful eyes.

[adren@line]

Originally Posted by HeavyD99

I would not use the term "slavish" state, you have to remember the various rights the Kalash are granted by paying the annual jizya tax:

1. They're exempted from paying the annual Zakat tax which is required for Muslims to pay. The Zakat tax is binding on property/income level unlike the Jizya which is a flate rate. So in many cases, the Jizya tax is equal to if not lower than the rate many of the wealthier Muslims are paying for Zakat in the Tribal areas region.

2. It exempts them from military service and still grants them protection from the state (I believe they're under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan not sure though)

3. Allows them to freely practice their religion, so long as they do not prevent their own people from converting to Islam. That is why the Muslim converts of the Kalash tribe are still living amongst them in the same villages.

Afghanistan is traditionally non-Muslim land. These Kalash were here first. Why should they have to pay foriegners or people who follow some foreign Arab dogma "protection money" in-order to live in peace?

Its no different from what Italian mob-bosses did in the 40's and 50's New York ghettos.

[adren@line]

By that definition, the white man was as mighty as he was right. For the white man conquered by better technology, instituted governments where true freedom reigned, et cetera.

No, my definition entails superior technology, sciences, freedoms, and an ability to defend ones self.

White society did no such thing up until maybe 20-30 years ago. They did as much bad as they did good. They massacred, enslaved, and did not uphold freedoms. They treated non-whites like animals. There is nothing "right" about this.

But that not withstanding, your assertion that we'd live as "immoral savages" is wrong. I do not affirm that one should rule by might makes right inside any nation - only in the discourse between them.

Well, thats how it was. European and American society were run by immoral savages, who treated those that werent white and/or Christian as second-class citizens, akin to how non-Muslims are treated in Islamic countries today (if not worse).

90 percent of Indian casualities resulted from mere contact with the Europeans and their germs.

It wasn't mere contact. It was due to extended contact and amplified by the conditions of poverty that were created by the occupying Europeans.

Furthermore, the American Indians were hardly "innocent" of savagery. Let us not forget the massacres, the scalping, the raiding, et cetera, which the Indians perpetrated against the white man, in equal dosages as he faced atrocities. It was an even battlefield in this regard wholly.

Such was their right. As you agree, if "aliens" occupy your land, you attack. Apply your standards across the board.

That's pretty historically inaccurate. For one: The majority of early settlers were Scotch-Irish. Secondly, the Irish were quickly accepted into American culture, after intiial reservations of various sort.

not from what I have read.

Simply because one will go to war with someone does not mean one does not share supercultural ties.

I am not claiming some big happy "white family". I am merely claiming the obvious point that since the Renaissance (and earlier in the Roman world) there has been an established idea of European (white) civilization and superculture.

Its "established" in the discourse of psuedo-intellectuals and nationalists. Again, its all hypothetical and doesn't mean anything in any practical way. It has no averse effect on anyone in anything that matters.

You are trying to pass it off as something more meaningful than it is. It isn't that meaningful, at all.

Modern genetic studies have actually shown that Jews are dissimilar to their white neighbours, indicative of a closed off gene pool owing to cultural segregation.

Not really. 50-80% of Jews are descendants of European converts. One can get a good enough idea in regards to ancestry if one simply looks at someone. Osama Bin Laden is an authentic near-eastern Semite. Steven Spielberg is a descendant of a European convert. He is white. He is not a "Semite" in any other way other than cultural.

Likewise, I can look at a Chinese man and with 99.9999% certainty state that his lineage on the paternal (or maternal side) does not trace to migrants who lived in Brazil, or India, or Mexico.

Furthermore, Turkic peoples are indeed racially different. Turkic peoples retain Asiatic skull features, genetics, et cetera. Indo-Europeans have dramatically different features and genetics.

I wasn't referring to Turko-Mongols. I was referring to Turks in Turkey. They are as white as white people get. They look like Greeks and other Europeans.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Snakeeyes:



I mean both. Linguistically, certainly. Genetically, not as strong, but almost as much.



I base my argument along the y-chromosmone phenotypes most common in Europe and amongst Persian (I.E. non-ARabic or Turkic) Iranians. Namely, R1A1, R1b, and I. This strongly suggests that at least on the paternal side, there was a people who spread alongside the Indo-European languages and civilizations. It is not as strong, again, as the linguistic ties, but it paints a very convincing picture.

We also must speak of the religious connections. Iranian, Hindu, Germanic, Greco-Roman, and Celtic divinities share cognates and loose placements with one another. Examples: Aesir (Germanic), Asura (Sanskrit), and Ahura (Persian). Zeus (Greek), Dyeus Pita (Sanskrit), Tiwaaz/Tyr (Germanic).

It is actually qutie reasonable to assume that PIE and Finno-Ugric and Altaic have a common root even further back, although I am not aware of enough studies that prove that consistantly. But then we'd be getting back to the tens of thousands of years prior, as opposed to the last 6,000 or so.

Okay, I'm not totally familiar with the genetic research on this one, but my argument was that in fringe areas, such as the outer reaches of Scandinavia, the Mediterranean pre-Mycenean period and of course the Indian subcontinent, Indo-Europeans came in to places already populated by other cultures. Indo-European speaking peoples, just looking at them, exhibit very broad and diverse physical characteristics in the countries they inhabit.

My field is Indo-European languages and cultures; I've done comparative work on Greek, Hittite, Avestan, and Sanskrit, and I was a religion/linguistics double major, with the religious studies aspect focused on Greek and Indian religions, among others. The cultural and linguistic data I'm more than familiar with; Although the Dyaus Pitar/Zeus/Jupiter is a given, the Asura/Ahura thing is solid only for Indo-Iranian (this being the most solidly reconstructible IE family after Greek), with the addition of Old Norse Aesir a theory only, and one that has been convincingly argued against many times. There are other things we can boil down and say with some authority were culturally PIE, like the solar gods/goddesses like Eos/Usas (dawn) and Helios/Sol/Surya (sun), and some specific rituals like the Horse sacrifice and probably a fire cult of some sort (Agni/Hestia). But these are bare-bone details, they come from the most archaic sources we have from individual cultures and even then there is abundant evidence that in places like India, Greece, the British Isles and Scandinavia, they've been heavily influenced by contact with other cultures (all the Sanskrit retroflex stops, for example, which are there in the earliest examples we have, are non-Indo-European).

Nothing about the cultural or linguistic evidence is proof of genetic affinity; consider that Haitians mix Christian themes in with Voodun practices and have a French/African creole as their language, that certain Scandinavian beliefs are now thought to be borrowed from Shamanic practices of Lapps and Finns they came in contact with, that they speak a creole of Spanish in the Phillipines with a Catholic and Buddhist religious strata, a creole of Sanskrit and Polynesian in Indonesia with a native animist and classical Hindu mixed religion, so on and so forth. Languages and culture spread and are adopted across cultures very easily. The French are a Germanic/Celtic ethnic group who adopted a Romance language almost a thousand years ago, and now they have a substantial Arabic population living there as well.

Basically, when we come to it the IE homeland question is almost considered a lost cause by leading Indo-Europeanists like Watkins, Jamison, Nagy, Witzel, etc; and almost nobody gives any credence to the "Aryan race" idea that was so popular a hundred years ago. Ancient history is just too confusing to say that with any authority and we know there's been heavy mixing and movement. If there's "convincing" genetic evidence, I haven't seen it and few people in the field are paying much attention to it. I read a book on the British Isles alone and it seemed you could only get peripheral ideas on Germanic and Celtic genes and their movements, so I don't know how we're supposed to believe these geneticists have somehow figured all this out. You would first have to sift through all the History and Archeology to even get an idea where everyone has gone and been, which is something the world of academia has been doing for 200+ years without a definitive answer, and then you'd have to test tens of thousands of people in a hundred different countries to be sure. This kind of genetic work is very new and people get very excited over it but it hasn't proven anything very conclusively quite yet.

[adren@line]

IE Homeland:

Southern Russia, or India itself?

Lets consider that the oldest IE text is from India, and that the oldest IE language is also Indian. Ofcourse, we have Hittite, but some stuff I have read has stated that the dating of Hittite was simply made up and isnt based on anything concrete.